Barth v. Mojica
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-02923
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barth v. Mojica, Judge Orrick denied Shawn Damon Barth’s fee-waiver request and dismissed his civil-rights case without prejudice because three prior dismissals barred fee-free filing.
Shawn Damon Barth’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was denied, and his case was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants received judgment in their favor, while Barth was allowed to file a new paid complaint.
What happened
In Barth v. Mojica, Shawn Damon Barth, a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights case under a federal law called Section 1983 and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court determined that at least three of his earlier federal cases had been dismissed for reasons that count against fee-free filing by prisoners.
The court had ordered Barth to explain why that restriction should not apply and told him he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee. Barth did not respond, did not pay the fee, did not challenge the prior dismissals, and did not show that an exception for immediate danger applied.
Judge William Orrick denied Barth’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the case without prejudice. The order allowed Barth to bring his claims in a new complaint after paying the filing fee, entered judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Barth v. Mojica · No. 3:21-cv-02923
- William Orrick
- Aug. 4, 2021
Background
Shawn Damon Barth filed a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee. The court issued an order requiring him to show why the prisoner-filing restriction in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) should not apply. That statute generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the fee after three or more qualifying prior federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
The court identified three prior federal proceedings as apparent qualifying dismissals: No. 2:16-cv-01469-DMG-RAO in the Central District of California; No. 2:18-cv-04763-DMG-RAO in the Central District of California; and No. 3:18-cv-01242-WHO in the Northern District of California. The opinion states that those proceedings involved dismissals for failure to state a claim, and also references other grounds or defects in those cases, including a bar based on the validity of a conviction, sovereign immunity, and failure to correct pleading defects.
Failure to Respond
Barth did not respond to the order to show cause. He did not pay the filing fee, show that any of the three prior dismissals should not count, show that he qualified for the immediate-danger exception, or otherwise explain why the case should not be dismissed.
Ruling
Judge William H. Orrick denied Barth’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the federal civil-rights action without prejudice to Barth bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.