Jones v. Alameda District Attorney's Office
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:19-cv-04428
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jones v. Alameda District Attorney’s Office, Judge Seeborg denied Jones’s request to proceed without paying and dismissed the civil-rights suit without prejudice.
Brandon Lawalter Jones could not pursue this action without paying the filing fee, but the dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new paid complaint. The defendants received judgment in their favor in this case.
What happened
In Jones v. Alameda District Attorney’s Office, Brandon Lawalter Jones brought a federal civil-rights lawsuit and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified four of Jones’s earlier federal cases as qualifying dismissals under the rule that limits fee-free lawsuits by prisoners with three or more such dismissals.
Jones argued that mental or physical health problems had prevented him from properly amending his earlier complaints. The court ruled that this did not meet the exception for people facing an immediate danger when they file a new lawsuit, and Jones did not otherwise show that the earlier dismissals should not count.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied Jones’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the civil-rights action without prejudice to filing a new complaint after paying the fee. The court also directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, enter judgment for the defendants, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Alameda District Attorney's Office · No. 3:19-cv-04428
- Richard Seeborg
- Oct. 1, 2019
Background
Brandon Lawalter Jones filed a federal civil-rights action against the Alameda District Attorney’s Office and other defendants. He applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner generally may not proceed without paying if, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, the prisoner brought federal actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The law includes an exception if the prisoner was facing an immediate danger when filing the new action.
The court previously ordered Jones to explain why his case should not be dismissed under this rule and told him that he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee. The court identified four earlier cases as qualifying dismissals: one for failure to state a claim and three after Jones did not file amended complaints following dismissals for failure to state a claim.
Jones’s Response
Jones argued that he could not file adequate amended complaints in the earlier cases because of a bipolar crisis or because he was otherwise not mentally or physically capable of filing them. He argued that this entitled him to the immediate-danger exception.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the immediate-danger exception requires a showing that the plaintiff faced an immediate danger when he filed the current lawsuit, not during the litigation of earlier lawsuits. The court concluded that Jones had not shown that the earlier dismissals should not count, that his earlier pleadings stated valid claims, or that another adequate reason excused those dismissals. Jones also had not paid the filing fee.
Ruling
Judge Richard Seeborg denied Jones’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court dismissed the civil-rights action without prejudice to Jones bringing his claims in a new complaint after paying the fee. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.