Barth v. Matsuno
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-03611
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barth v. Matsuno, Judge Orrick denied Shawn Damon Barth’s fee-waiver request and dismissed his civil-rights case without prejudice because three prior cases counted as strikes.
Shawn Damon Barth’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied, and his civil-rights action was dismissed without prejudice. The defendants received judgment in their favor, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Barth v. Matsuno, Shawn Damon Barth filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court identified three of his earlier federal cases as dismissals that could count against him under a rule limiting fee-free lawsuits by prisoners.
The court gave Barth an opportunity to explain why that rule should not apply or to pay the filing fee. Barth did not respond, did not pay the fee, and did not show that the earlier cases should not count or that he faced an immediate danger.
Judge William H. Orrick denied Barth’s request to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Barth to bring the claims in a new complaint if he pays the filing fee. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
The detailed version
- Barth v. Matsuno · No. 3:21-cv-03611
- William Orrick
- Oct. 25, 2021
Background
Shawn Damon Barth, identified as a state prisoner, filed a federal 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 explain why the prisoner-litigation filing restriction in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) should not apply. That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after three earlier federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
The court identified three earlier federal actions as potential qualifying dismissals: an action dismissed for failure to state a claim and other stated defects; an action ultimately dismissed after Barth did not correct pleading defects; and an action dismissed for failure to state a claim and because the allegations were overly lengthy, followed by failure to correct the defects. The court also informed Barth that he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline.
Court’s analysis
Barth did not respond to the order. The court found that he had not shown that the three earlier dismissals should not count under § 1915(g), that he qualified for the exception for prisoners facing an immediate danger of serious physical injury, or that there was another reason the action should not be dismissed. He also had not paid the filing fee.
The court therefore applied the filing restriction. The opinion resolved the case based on the filing-fee restriction and did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Disposition
The court denied Barth’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee. The federal civil-rights action was dismissed without prejudice to Barth bringing his claims in a new paid complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.