Sharp v. Koenig
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-06035
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sharp v. Koenig, Judge Seeborg ordered Anthony A. Sharp to explain why a prisoner-filing-fee bar should not deny pauper status and lead to dismissal.
Anthony A. Sharp’s ability to pursue this action without prepaying the filing fee; the case could be dismissed if he neither responds properly nor pays the $402 fee by February 21, 2022.
What happened
Sharp v. Koenig concerns Anthony A. Sharp’s request to pursue a civil-rights case without paying the filing fee upfront. The court said he may have had at least three earlier prisoner cases or appeals dismissed for reasons that count under the prisoner-filing statute.
The court ordered Sharp to explain by February 21, 2022, why that statute should not prevent him from proceeding without prepaying the fee. The court also said he could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by that date.
The court had not yet dismissed the case. Judge Seeborg stated that failing to respond properly or pay the fee would result in dismissal without prejudice to bringing the claims in a new paid complaint.
The detailed version
- Sharp v. Koenig · No. 3:21-cv-06035
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 5, 2022
Background
Anthony A. Sharp, identified as a state prisoner, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Sharp to explain why the court should not take a specified action.
The court focused on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee after three or more prior prisoner actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The statute contains an exception when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court identified four earlier prisoner matters involving Sharp that it considered potential qualifying dismissals. The opinion stated that Sharp ultimately did not amend or cure defects in those matters, or that one matter was dismissed because the claims were time-barred. Consistent with Ninth Circuit law, the court said Sharp had to receive notice and an opportunity to show that the filing-fee restriction did not apply, while Sharp bore the ultimate burden of persuasion.
Order
The court stated that Sharp did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury and ordered him to file a response by February 21, 2022, explaining why his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). The court required the response to be labeled “RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE” and stated that no extensions would be granted.
Alternatively, Sharp could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by February 21, 2022. The court warned that failing to file a proper response or pay the full fee by that date would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice to bringing the claims in a new paid complaint.
Disposition
This order did not itself dismiss the action or finally decide the merits of Sharp’s civil-rights claims. It required Sharp to respond to the possible statutory bar or pay the filing fee. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order on January 5, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.