Ainsworth v. CDCR Secretary, Macromber

Background

Tyrell Ainsworth, identified as a state prisoner and CDCR Inmate #AL-4915, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified at least three earlier prisoner actions or appeals involving Ainsworth that federal courts dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The opinion identifies those earlier matters by docket number, court, and date, but this summary does not reproduce their prior case captions.

The opinion also states that a prior district court decision concluded that the three matters counted as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that the Ninth Circuit recently determined that Ainsworth had three or more qualifying dismissals. In that appellate matter, the Ninth Circuit denied his request to proceed without paying the fee, ordered him to pay $605, and dismissed the appeal after he did not pay or respond.

Applicable law

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee after three or more qualifying dismissals, unless the prisoner shows that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the current complaint. The court explained that this rule concerns the prisoner’s litigation history rather than the merits of the current lawsuit. Ninth Circuit law requires the prisoner to receive notice of the potential bar and an opportunity to persuade the court that it does not apply.

The court explained that imminent danger must involve harm ready to take place or threateningly present when the complaint was filed. Past injuries and generalized fears of possible future harm are not enough.

Court’s action

The court stated that Ainsworth had not shown the imminent-danger exception. It found that his conclusory allegations of physical torture and punishment lacked facts supporting a plausible finding that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint.

The court ordered Ainsworth to show cause by November 3, 2025, why his application to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). His response had to be labeled “RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE” on the first page. Alternatively, he could avoid dismissal by paying the full $405 filing fee by the same deadline. The court ordered that failure to respond or pay would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice to bringing the claims in a new paid complaint. The opinion is an order to show cause; it does not itself state that the application was denied or that the action was dismissed.