Roberts v. Davis
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-07032
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Roberts v. Davis, Judge Illston ordered David Nathaniel Roberts to explain why pauper status and his action should not be dismissed under the prisoner-filing rule.
David Nathaniel Roberts, an incarcerated person representing himself, was required either to explain why the prisoner-filing restriction should not apply or to pay the $402 filing fee by February 26, 2021; the court also addressed his request to attend a future hearing by videoconference.
What happened
David Nathaniel Roberts, an incarcerated person representing himself, brought this civil action and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified five of Roberts’s earlier cases that may count as qualifying dismissals under the prisoner-filing rule.
The court said Roberts did not appear to be facing an immediate risk of serious physical injury. It ordered him to explain in writing by February 26, 2021, why his request to proceed without paying should not be denied and why the action should not be dismissed. He could instead avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by that deadline.
Judge Susan Illston also denied Roberts’s request for forms to attend courtroom video recording because no hearing had been held or scheduled. The court said it would provide information for videoconference participation if a hearing later became necessary.
The detailed version
- Roberts v. Davis · No. 3:20-cv-07032
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 20, 2021
Background
David Nathaniel Roberts filed this civil action while incarcerated and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee under the federal statute allowing qualifying prisoners to proceed without prepaying fees. He represented himself.
Prisoner-filing restriction
The court explained that a prisoner generally may not proceed without prepaying 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 legally sufficient claim. The restriction does not apply if the prisoner is under an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also explained that a prisoner must receive notice and an opportunity to show why the restriction should not apply.
The court identified five earlier dismissals involving Roberts that it believed might count under this rule. The court stated that it evaluated those matters using their dismissal orders. It listed dismissals for failure to state a claim, as well as one dismissal involving a duplicated complaint that was described as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim.
Order to show cause
The court stated that Roberts did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury. It therefore ordered him to show cause in a written filing due by February 26, 2021, why his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed under the prisoner-filing restriction. Alternatively, Roberts could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by the deadline. The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed at this stage.
Request to attend by video
Roberts also asked for forms allowing him to attend a courtroom camera or video-recording project. The court stated that no hearing, whether by video or otherwise, had been held or scheduled, so there were no forms to provide. It said that, if a hearing became necessary, it would send the information needed for Roberts to participate by videoconference.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause concerning possible denial of fee-free status and possible dismissal. It did not make a final dismissal in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.