Barth v. Matsuno
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-03611
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Barth v. Matsuno, Judge Orrick ordered Barth to explain why he may proceed without paying the filing fee after three prior qualifying dismissals.
Shawn Damon Barth’s current civil-rights action and his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee were affected. The order required him either to show why the three-strikes rule should not apply or to pay the $402 filing fee; it did not yet dismiss the action.
What happened
Barth v. Matsuno concerns Shawn Damon Barth’s civil-rights lawsuit and request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified Barth as a state prisoner and frequent federal litigant who had filed this action under a federal civil-rights law.
The court found that three of Barth’s earlier prisoner cases or appeals had been dismissed for reasons that count as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court also said Barth did not appear to face an immediate serious physical danger.
Judge Orrick ordered Barth to explain by October 1, 2021, why he should be allowed to proceed without paying the fee. Alternatively, Barth could pay the full $402 filing fee by that date; otherwise, the court said it would dismiss this action without prejudice to filing a new paid complaint.
The detailed version
- Barth v. Matsuno · No. 3:21-cv-03611
- William Orrick
- Aug. 18, 2021
Background
Shawn Damon Barth, identified as a state prisoner and frequent federal litigant, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. His initial filing-fee application was incomplete. After the Clerk directed him to correct it and he did not do so by the deadline, the court issued this order requiring him to show why his request to proceed without paying the fee should not be barred.
Three-strikes issue
The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more prior federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court stated that this rule concerns the prisoner’s history of prior litigation rather than the merits of the current case.
The court identified three prior matters involving Barth:
- In Barth v. Beard, No. 2:16-cv-01469-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, with additional defects involving a bar under Heck v. Humphrey and sovereign immunity.
- In Barth v. Kernan, No. 2:18-cv-04763-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim, with additional Heck and sovereign-immunity defects; the case was later dismissed after Barth did not cure the defects.
- In Barth v. Muniz, No. 3:18-cv-01242-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and because its allegations were excessively complicated; the case was ultimately dismissed after Barth did not correct the pleading defects.
The court concluded that all three dismissals count as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It also stated that Barth did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Order
Judge Orrick ordered Barth to file a response by October 1, 2021, explaining why the three-strikes rule should not prevent him from proceeding without paying the filing fee. The order stated that no extension would be granted and required the response to be labeled “RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.”
The court also gave Barth an alternative: he could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by October 1, 2021. The order did not itself dismiss the current action or finally deny the request to proceed without paying the fee. Instead, it stated that failing to respond or pay the fee by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice to filing a new paid complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.