Barth v. Serintero
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-05137
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barth v. Serinteno, Judge Orrick revoked fee-waiver status and dismissed the civil-rights action without prejudice because Barth neither paid nor showed cause.
Shawn Damon Barth and the defendants named in the action; Barth could not continue this case without paying the filing fee but was allowed to bring his claims in a new paid complaint.
What happened
Shawn Damon Barth filed a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court later found that three of his earlier federal cases appeared to count as qualifying dismissals under a rule limiting fee waivers for prisoners.
The court ordered Barth to explain why that rule should not apply or to pay the filing fee. Barth did not respond, did not pay, and did not show that the earlier dismissals were disqualified or that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury.
Judge William H. Orrick revoked Barth’s fee-waiver status and dismissed Barth v. Serinteno without prejudice, allowing Barth to bring his claims in a new paid complaint. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
The detailed version
- Barth v. Serintero · No. 3:20-cv-05137
- William Orrick
- July 19, 2021
Background
Shawn Damon Barth, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, brought a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court initially dismissed the original complaint with permission to amend and granted Barth’s fee-waiver request. After Barth filed an amended complaint, the court learned that he might be barred from proceeding without paying because he had filed three or more earlier federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim.
Three-dismissal rule
Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner from bringing a civil action without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The exception is when the prisoner is in immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court’s order identified three earlier federal actions involving Barth that appeared to qualify as such dismissals. The order stated that the earlier cases included dismissals for failure to state a claim, and that some also involved other grounds or were ultimately dismissed after Barth did not correct defects in amended pleadings. The court also stated that the fact that one earlier dismissal was issued by a magistrate judge did not prevent it from counting.
Order to show cause and ruling
The court ordered Barth to explain why the three-dismissal restriction should not apply. The order also told him that he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline. Barth filed no response. The court therefore found that he had not shown that the earlier dismissals did not qualify, that he met the immediate-danger exception, or that the action should otherwise continue without payment.
Judge William H. Orrick revoked Barth’s fee-waiver status. The court dismissed this civil-rights action without prejudice to Barth bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file. The opinion resolved the case based on the filing-fee restriction and did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.