Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 28, 2021

Barth v. C.S.R. Doe-1

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:21-cv-04363
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Barth v. C.S.R. Doe-1, Judge Orrick denied Barth’s fee-waiver request and dismissed the civil-rights case without prejudice under the three-strikes rule.

Who this affects

Shawn Damon Barth’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied, and his case was dismissed without prejudice; the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

What happened

Shawn Damon Barth, a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights case against C.S.R. Doe-1 and others and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified three earlier federal cases that appeared to qualify as strikes under the prisoner three-strikes rule and ordered Barth to explain why the rule should not apply.

Barth did not file a proper response, pay the filing fee, show that any strike was improperly counted, or show that he faced an immediate danger that would create an exception. The court therefore denied his request to proceed without paying and dismissed the case without prejudice to filing a new complaint after paying the fee.

Judge Tam H. Orrick entered judgment for the defendants, terminated the pending motions, and closed the file. The dismissal did not bar Barth from bringing his claims in a new paid complaint.

The detailed version

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

Case
Barth v. C.S.R. Doe-1 · No. 3:21-cv-04363
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Oct. 28, 2021

Background

Shawn Damon Barth, a state prisoner, brought this federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. He also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court issued an order requiring Barth to show why the prisoner three-strikes rule should not prevent him from proceeding without paying. That rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The court identified three earlier federal actions that appeared to qualify as strikes and informed Barth that he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline.

Discussion

The court found that Barth did not file a proper response to the order. His filings did not show that any of the three identified dismissals failed to qualify as strikes, establish that he met the exception for imminent danger of serious physical injury, or otherwise explain why the three-strikes restriction should not apply. He also did not pay the filing fee.

Ruling

The court denied Barth’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the federal civil-rights action without prejudice to Barth bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. The court also ordered the Clerk to terminate the pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file. Judge Tam H. Orrick signed the order.

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.