Hamilton v. Davis
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-06319
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hamilton v. Davis, Judge Chen ordered a prisoner to explain why his fee waiver should not be denied and his case dismissed.
Paul C. Hamilton, the prisoner plaintiff, and his ability to continue the action without paying the filing fee upfront.
What happened
Hamilton v. Davis concerns Paul C. Hamilton, a prisoner who filed this civil case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The court identified six earlier dismissals that might count under a rule limiting fee waivers for prisoners with three or more qualifying prior cases. The court said Hamilton did not appear to face an immediate risk of serious physical injury and gave him until January 24, 2020, to explain why the rule should not apply or to pay the full $400 filing fee.
Judge Chen did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, he ordered Hamilton to show cause in writing why his fee-waiver request should not be denied and the case dismissed under the prisoner-filing-fee rule.
The detailed version
- Hamilton v. Davis · No. 3:19-cv-06319
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
Paul C. Hamilton, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this civil action without a lawyer and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court considered the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act's “three strikes” rule, which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee if the prisoner has had three or more prior cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a legal claim, unless the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the prisoner bears the ultimate burden of showing that the three-strikes rule does not bar fee-waiver status. It identified six earlier dismissals that might qualify, including dismissals for failure to state a claim and an order denying permission to proceed without paying the fee and dismissing a petition as frivolous or malicious. The court also stated that Hamilton did not appear to be under an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
Order
The court ordered Hamilton to show cause in writing by January 24, 2020, why his request to proceed without paying the fee should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Alternatively, Hamilton could avoid dismissal by paying the full $400 filing fee by that deadline. This order did not itself dismiss the action. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.