Young v. Allison

Background

Zuri Sana-Kabisa Young, 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. This fee-waiver status is commonly called pauper status, or proceeding in forma pauperis.

The court considered the federal “three strikes” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after three or more earlier federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a legally valid claim, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Prior dismissals and notice

The court identified six earlier prisoner actions or appeals involving Young and concluded that each dismissal counted as a strike under Ninth Circuit law. The court explained that strikes can include dismissals for failure to state a claim, certain dismissals where a legal defense is apparent from the complaint, failure to amend after being given permission to do so, and repeated failure to correct an excessively lengthy complaint. The court also noted that two Ninth Circuit decisions had recognized that Young had accumulated at least three strikes.

The court stated that Young did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Under Ninth Circuit procedure, however, Young had to receive notice of the possible three-strikes bar and an opportunity to persuade the court that the bar did not apply before the court could deny pauper status and dismiss the action.

Rulings and next steps

The court ordered Young to show cause—meaning to explain—by March 21, 2022, why pauper status should not be denied and the action should not be dismissed under § 1915(g). Alternatively, Young could avoid dismissal by paying the full $402 filing fee by that date. The order states that failing to respond or pay by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice to bringing the claims in a new paid complaint.

The court separately denied Young’s motion to have the case reassigned from Judge Koh to Judge Westmore, stating that Young had no right to choose the judge assigned to the case. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket. This order did not itself dismiss the current action; it issued a deadline and warning before any such dismissal.