Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 16, 2021

Barth v. Vega

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:21-cv-03052
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Barth v. Vega, Judge Orrick denied IFP status and dismissed Barth’s civil-rights action without prejudice because of three prior qualifying dismissals.

Who this affects

Shawn Damon Barth’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied, and his action against Dannial Vega was dismissed without prejudice. Vega received judgment in his favor in this case.

What happened

In Barth v. Vega, Shawn Damon Barth, a state prisoner, brought a federal civil-rights action and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified at least three earlier federal cases dismissed for reasons that count under the prisoner filing-fee law.

The court ordered Barth to explain why the restriction should not apply and told him he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee. Barth did not properly respond, did not pay the fee, and did not show that an exception applied.

Judge Orrick denied Barth’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the action without prejudice, allowing Barth to bring his claims in a new paid complaint. The court also entered judgment for the defendant and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Barth v. Vega · No. 3:21-cv-03052
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Aug. 16, 2021

Background

Shawn Damon Barth, identified as a state prisoner and frequent federal litigant, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to proceed without paying 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.

Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after three or more prior federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The court identified three earlier federal actions involving Barth that appeared to qualify as such dismissals. The court also gave him an opportunity to challenge whether those dismissals counted, show that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury, pay the filing fee, or otherwise explain why the case should not be dismissed.

Court’s reasoning

Barth did not file a proper response to the order to show cause. He did not pay the filing fee, demonstrate that any of the three prior dismissals failed to qualify under section 1915(g), establish that the imminent-danger exception applied, or otherwise show why the action should continue. The court therefore imposed the filing restriction and denied his applications to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick ordered that Barth’s federal civil-rights action be dismissed without prejudice to filing his claims in a new paid complaint. The court denied the applications to proceed without paying the filing fee, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and closed the file.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.