Lewis v. Puente
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-09351
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Lewis v. Puente, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied free-filing status, granted Lewis’s payment motion, and ordered him to explain or pay $405.
Daronta T. Lewis is affected because he may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless he successfully shows that the three-strikes rule does not apply. The case had not yet reached review of the allegations on their merits.
What happened
Daronta T. Lewis, a self-represented state prisoner, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under Section 1983 and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee in Lewis v. Puente. He also filed a motion saying he could pay the fee.
The court identified at least three earlier prisoner cases that counted as dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. Because the court found no imminent danger of serious physical injury, it ruled that Lewis could not proceed without paying the fee unless he showed why the rule did not apply.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Lewis’s motion to pay and denied his request to proceed without paying. The court gave him 28 days either to show cause why the three-strikes rule should not bar his request or to pay the $405 filing fee; it said failure to do either would result in dismissal without prejudice to filing a new paid complaint.
The detailed version
- Lewis v. Puente · No. 3:24-cv-09351
- Martinez-Olguin
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Daronta T. Lewis, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for alleged civil-rights violations. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and separately filed a motion stating that he could pay the fee.
Legal standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner was facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the new action was filed. The court explained that a prisoner must receive notice of the possible three-strikes bar and an opportunity to respond before the court denies pauper status under that rule.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed Lewis’s earlier dismissal orders and identified six prior prisoner cases. It concluded that each dismissal counted as a strike under the statute, including dismissals involving a duplicative lawsuit, failure to identify a legally recognized claim, failure to identify a defendant personally involved in the alleged wrongdoing, and failure to correct vague, conclusory, or overly lengthy allegations after receiving an opportunity to amend.
The court further concluded that Lewis was not seeking relief from an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, he did not qualify for the statutory exception to the three-strikes rule in this action. The court had not yet conducted its initial review of Lewis’s complaint or addressed other pending motions.
Order
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Lewis’s motion stating that he could pay the filing fee. The court denied his motion to proceed without paying the fee and directed him, within 28 days of the order, either to show cause why the three-strikes rule did not bar pauper status or to pay the full $405 filing fee. If he did neither, the court stated that the action would be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it in a new paid complaint.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.