Roberts v. Monterey County Jail
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-07969
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Roberts v. Monterey County Jail, Judge Illston ordered Roberts to explain why pauper status and his case should not be dismissed under the three-strikes rule.
David Nathaniel Roberts is required either to explain why the prisoner three-strikes rule should not apply or to pay the full $402 filing fee; the case could be dismissed if he does neither.
What happened
Roberts, who was representing himself, filed a civil case and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified five of his earlier cases that might count as dismissals under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
That rule generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after three qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court said Roberts did not appear to meet that exception, but it had not yet made a final decision.
The court ordered Roberts to explain in writing by February 26, 2021, why his no-fee status and case should not be dismissed. Alternatively, he could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee. Judge Susan Illston issued the order.
The detailed version
- Roberts v. Monterey County Jail · No. 3:20-cv-07969
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 20, 2021
Background
David Nathaniel Roberts filed this civil action while incarcerated and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He was representing himself. The order states that he was incarcerated at Monterey County Jail when he filed the action and was then incarcerated at Wasco State Prison.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), commonly called the prisoner “three-strikes” rule, 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 a federal action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception is when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court explained that a prisoner must receive notice of the dismissals being considered and an opportunity to respond before the court denies no-fee status under this rule. A dismissal under § 1915(g) prevents the prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee, but the prisoner may still pursue the claims by paying the full filing fee at the outset.
Prior dismissals identified by the court
The court identified five dismissals that it believed might count under § 1915(g):
- A case dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- A case dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- A case dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- A case dismissed because the complaint duplicated an earlier case and was described as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim.
- A case dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The court stated that it evaluated these cases by reviewing their dismissal orders.
Order
Because of these potential qualifying dismissals, and because Roberts did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the court ordered him to show cause in writing by February 26, 2021, why his no-fee status should not be denied and this action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). The order gave him the alternative of paying the full $402 filing fee by that deadline to avoid dismissal.
This opinion is an order to show cause, not a final ruling dismissing the action. Judge Susan Illston did not finally decide in this order whether § 1915(g) bars Roberts from proceeding without paying the fee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.