Barth v. C.S.R. Doe-1
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-04363
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Barth v. C.S.R. Doe-1, Judge Orrick ordered Barth to explain why he should not lose pauper status and have the case dismissed.
Shawn Damon Barth, an incarcerated plaintiff seeking to proceed without paying the filing fee, must respond to the court or pay the $402 fee; the case could otherwise be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Shawn Damon Barth v. C.S.R. Doe-1, the court considered Barth’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in his civil-rights case. The court said Barth had at least three earlier federal cases or appeals dismissed for reasons that count as strikes under the prisoner litigation law.
The court also said Barth did not appear to be in immediate danger of serious physical injury. It ordered him to explain by October 15, 2021, why he should be allowed to proceed without paying the fee, or to pay the full $402 filing fee instead.
Judge William Orrick did not yet deny pauper status or dismiss the case in this order. He warned that failing to respond or pay by the deadline would result in dismissal without prejudice, allowing Barth to bring the claims in a new paid complaint.
The detailed version
- Barth v. C.S.R. Doe-1 · No. 3:21-cv-04363
- William Orrick
- Sept. 2, 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 asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the fee after three or more prior actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court identified three earlier dismissals involving Barth as strikes: an earlier case dismissed for failure to state a claim, a case dismissed after Barth failed to correct defects in an amended complaint, and a case dismissed for failure to state a claim and for filing a prolix complaint after receiving an opportunity to amend. The court also stated that the earlier dismissals involving failure to state a claim, obvious barriers under the rule recognized in Heck v. Humphrey, sovereign immunity, and failure to correct a prolix complaint counted as strikes.
Order
The court stated that Barth did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury. It ordered him to show cause by October 15, 2021, why his request to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why the current suit should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Barth could instead avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by that date. The court stated that failure to respond or pay would result in dismissal without prejudice to bringing the claims in a new paid complaint.
This order to show cause was not itself a final denial of fee-waived status or dismissal of the action. Judge William H. Orrick issued the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.