Harris v. State of California
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-02982
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Harris v. State of California, Judge Chen ordered incarcerated plaintiff Harris to explain why pauper status and his action should not be dismissed under the three-strikes rule.
James Lavell Harris, whose ability to continue the case without paying the filing fee was at issue; the action could also have been dismissed if he did not show cause or pay the fee.
What happened
Harris v. State of California concerns James Lavell Harris, who is incarcerated and filed this civil action without a lawyer. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court identified three of Harris’s earlier cases that may count as dismissals under the federal three-strikes rule because they were dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also stated that Harris did not appear to be in immediate danger of serious physical injury, an exception to that rule.
The court did not yet dismiss the action or deny Harris’s request to proceed without paying the fee. Judge Chen ordered Harris to explain in writing by October 25, 2019, why that relief and the action should not be dismissed; Harris could alternatively avoid dismissal by paying the full $400 filing fee by that deadline.
The detailed version
- Harris v. State of California · No. 3:19-cv-02982
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 20, 2019
Background
James Lavell Harris, also known as Smiley James Harris, filed this civil action without a lawyer while incarcerated at the Lake County Jail. He applied to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner generally may not proceed without paying the filing fee if, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner brought an action or appeal in a federal court that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception is when the prisoner is in immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court explained that only dismissals fitting one of those three categories count as “strikes.” A prisoner must receive notice of the possible strikes and an opportunity to respond before the court denies pauper status under this rule. If pauper status is denied under § 1915(g), the prisoner may still pursue the claims by paying the full filing fee at the start of the action.
Prior dismissals identified by the court
The court stated that the following three earlier dismissals may count as strikes:
- Harris v. Lake County Jail, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-3758 SI, dismissed for failure to state a claim;
- Harris v. Lake County Jail, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-5214, dismissed for failure to state a claim; and
- Harris v. Lake County Sheriff’s Department, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 14-3305 PSG, dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The court said it evaluated those cases using their dismissal orders and docket sheets.
Order
Because of the three potentially qualifying dismissals, and because Harris did not appear to be in immediate danger of serious physical injury, the court ordered him to show cause in writing by October 25, 2019, why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). The court stated that, instead of showing cause, Harris could avoid dismissal by paying the full $400 filing fee by the deadline.
This order was a notice and opportunity to respond. It did not itself deny pauper status or dismiss the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.