Coleman v. Fernandez
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-00539
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Coleman v. Fernandez, Judge Illston ordered Coleman to explain why he should proceed without paying the filing fee under the three-strikes rule.
Wendell Coleman is affected because the court questioned whether he may proceed without paying the filing fee and gave him the choice of responding to the order to show cause or paying the full $400 fee. The action could be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), but this order did not finally dismiss it.
What happened
Wendell Coleman, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a civil-rights case under federal law and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reviewed that request.
Federal law generally prevents an incarcerated person from proceeding without paying the fee after three earlier cases were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, unless the person faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court identified at least three earlier Coleman cases that appeared to qualify and said it did not appear that he faced such danger when he filed this case.
Judge Susan Illston ordered Coleman to show why his request to proceed without paying the fee and this case should not be dismissed under that rule. The order also gave him the alternative of paying the full $400 filing fee by the deadline; it did not finally dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Fernandez · No. 3:21-cv-00539
- Susan Illston
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
Wendell Coleman, an inmate at the Napa County Jail, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The order addresses that fee application, not the merits of Coleman's claims.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), an incarcerated person generally may not bring a civil action without paying the filing fee if, on three or more earlier occasions while incarcerated or detained, the person brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception is when the person was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. A frivolous case is one with no basis in law or fact; a malicious case is filed with an intention or desire to harm another; and a dismissal for failure to state a claim has the same general meaning as dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Before dismissing under this rule, the court must notify the prisoner of the earlier dismissals being considered and provide an opportunity to respond. The prisoner bears the ultimate burden of showing that the rule does not bar proceeding without paying the fee. A dismissal under § 1915(g) prevents 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
The court identified at least three earlier Coleman cases that were dismissed for failure to state a claim: Coleman v. Nguyen, No. 18-cv-3468 SI; Coleman v. Napa County Department of Corrections, No. 18-cv-4104 SI; and Coleman v. Alison, No. 19-cv-964 SI.
Order and effect
Because of those dismissals, and because the court said it did not appear that Coleman was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action, Judge Susan Illston ordered Coleman to show cause why his request to proceed without paying the fee and the action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). Alternatively, Coleman could avoid dismissal by paying the full $400 filing fee by the deadline. The order was an order to show cause and did not itself finally dismiss the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.