Evans v. Bloomfield
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-01383
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Evans v. Bloomfield, Judge Rogers ordered Kenneth Evans to explain why his fee-waiver request and case should not be dismissed under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
Kenneth Evans, the incarcerated plaintiff seeking to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, must respond to the order or pay the $400 filing fee to avoid dismissal. The order does not decide the defendants' liability or the merits of Evans's civil-rights claims.
What happened
In Evans v. Bloomfield, Kenneth Evans, a California state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights case seeking damages and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The court identified at least four earlier prisoner cases that may count as dismissals under the federal three-strikes rule. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee after three qualifying dismissals, unless the prisoner faces an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
Judge Yvonne Rogers ordered Evans to explain in writing within 28 days why his fee-waiver request should not be denied and the case dismissed. The order said he could avoid dismissal by paying the $400 filing fee, and that failing to respond or pay would result in dismissal without further notice.
The detailed version
- Evans v. Bloomfield · No. 4:21-cv-01383
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 23, 2021
Background
Kenneth Evans, identified as a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for alleged civil-rights violations. He also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee upfront.
Three-strikes issue
The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three or more earlier actions or appeals while incarcerated or detained that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. A dismissal for failure to state a claim means the complaint did not adequately allege a legally actionable claim. A frivolous case lacks a basis in law or fact, and a malicious case is filed with an intention or desire to harm another.
The court stated that it had reviewed the dismissal orders in Evans's earlier prisoner cases and found at least four dismissals that may qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): an April 28, 2004 dismissal involving a finding that the civil-rights complaint was frivolous and that all defendants were immune; a February 25, 2008 judgment on the pleadings based on failure to state a claim; a March 2, 2011 dismissal for failure to state a claim; and a December 5, 2012 dismissal on the same ground.
Order
The court ordered Evans to show cause in writing within 28 days why his motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied and the action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). The court stated that Evans could avoid dismissal by paying the $400 filing fee. It also stated that failure to file a timely response or pay the full filing fee would result in dismissal without further notice. The order did not itself dismiss the action or finally rule on the underlying civil-rights claims. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.