Barth v. Broomfield
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-08621
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Barth v. Broomfield, Judge Orrick ordered Barth to explain why his fee waiver should not be denied under the three-strikes rule.
Shawn Damon Barth, a state prisoner seeking to proceed without prepaying the filing fee; the lawsuit had not yet been decided on its merits.
What happened
In Barth v. Broomfield, Shawn Damon Barth, a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights lawsuit and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court identified three earlier cases that it said counted as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The court also found that Barth’s allegations about repeated prison transfers did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. It therefore ordered him to explain why the three-strikes rule should not apply to him.
Judge Orrick did not yet rule on the lawsuit’s merits. The order gave Barth a deadline to respond or pay the full filing fee, and stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Barth v. Broomfield · No. 3:20-cv-08621
- William Orrick
- May 17, 2021
Background
Shawn Damon Barth, identified as a state prisoner and frequent federal litigant, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court issued an order to show cause—an order requiring a party to explain why a proposed action should not be taken—because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) may bar a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without prepaying the fee.
Three-strikes finding
The court identified three prior prisoner actions or appeals involving Barth that it concluded counted as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act:
- In Barth v. Beard, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, with additional defects involving a bar recognized in an earlier criminal case and sovereign immunity.
- In Barth v. Kernan, the complaint was dismissed after Barth failed to correct defects following an opportunity to amend, including failure to state a claim.
- In Barth v. Muniz, the amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and for being excessively lengthy after Barth did not correct it.
The court explained that dismissals for failure to state a claim can count as strikes. It also stated that obvious barriers appearing on the face of a complaint, including the bar recognized in an earlier criminal case or immunity, may support a strike, and that knowingly failing to correct an excessively lengthy complaint after receiving an opportunity to amend may also qualify.
Imminent-danger exception
The three-strikes rule has an exception when a prisoner is under an immediate threat of serious physical injury. Barth complained about being transferred among prisons, including being moved to San Quentin and other prisons, and sought an assignment to a particular prison. The court concluded that his objection to the transfers did not establish an immediate physical danger.
Order
The court did not decide the merits of Barth’s civil-rights claims. It ordered Barth to show cause why his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied and why the action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). The order stated that Barth could instead avoid dismissal by paying the full filing fee. It set June 25, 2021, as the stated payment deadline in one portion of the order and later referred to July 2, 2021, as the deadline for either responding or paying. The order further stated that failing to respond or pay would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice to bringing the claims in a new paid complaint. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.