Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 3, 2020

El-Shaddai v. Muniz

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:20-cv-02042
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil RightsCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In El-Shaddai v. Muniz, Judge Rogers ordered the prisoner to explain why fee-waiver status and the case should not be dismissed.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee and to continue this civil-rights action was placed at issue; the order required a response or payment before any dismissal.

What happened

In El-Shaddai v. Muniz, the plaintiff, a California state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint seeking damages and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court identified at least three of the plaintiff’s earlier prisoner cases that may count as dismissals under a rule limiting fee-waiver status for prisoners with three qualifying dismissals. The court also said the plaintiff did not appear to face an immediate danger of serious physical injury.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the plaintiff to show cause by the deadline stated in the order why his fee-waiver request and this case should not be dismissed. The plaintiff could avoid dismissal by paying the $400 filing fee; no final dismissal or denial was entered in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
El-Shaddai v. Muniz · No. 4:20-cv-02042
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
June 3, 2020

Background

Adonai El-Shaddai, also identified in the caption as James Ray Wilkerson, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages. He was a California state prisoner representing himself and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a request commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Three-dismissal rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally prevents 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 faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court explained that the prisoner must receive notice and an opportunity to show why the rule does not apply.

The court reviewed dismissal orders from three earlier prisoner cases involving the plaintiff and concluded that they may count under this rule. The court also stated that the plaintiff did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Order

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the plaintiff to show cause by the deadline stated in the order why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order stated that he could avoid dismissal by paying the full $400 filing fee. It further stated that failing to respond on time or failing to pay the fee would result in dismissal without further notice. The order itself did not enter that dismissal or finally deny the fee-waiver request.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.