Johnson v. Spurgeon
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-00327
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Spurgeon, Judge White denied pauper status, vacated a clerk notice, and ordered payment or an explanation under the three-strikes rule.
Paul David Johnson was required either to pay the full $350 filing fee or explain why the three-strikes rule should not bar him from proceeding without prepaying the fee. The case remained subject to dismissal if he failed to do so.
What happened
Johnson v. Spurgeon concerns Paul David Johnson, a California prisoner who filed a civil-rights complaint against officials at San Quentin State Prison. He complained about conditions during a COVID-19 quarantine and about not being allowed to take a COVID-19 test after quarantine.
The court found that Johnson had at least three qualifying prior dismissals, or “strikes,” and that his complaint did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed it. The court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee, vacated the Clerk’s deficiency notice, and ordered him within 28 days to pay the full $350 filing fee or explain why the three-strikes rule should not apply. The court said failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice to bringing the claims in a new civil-rights case after paying the fee.
Judge Jeffrey White issued the January 30, 2023 order. The order addressed filing-fee status and did not decide whether Johnson’s civil-rights claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Spurgeon · No. 4:23-cv-00327
- Jeffrey White
- Jan. 30, 2023
Background
Paul David Johnson, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint against D. Spurgeon and other officials at San Quentin State Prison. Johnson complained about the conditions of his COVID-19 quarantine between September and October 2022. He also complained that, after being released from quarantine, he was not allowed to take a COVID-19 test because the result would still have been positive.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception applies if the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the case was filed.
The court found that Johnson had at least three qualifying prior dismissals or appeals. The opinion states that the listed prior matters included dismissals for frivolousness and failure to state a claim. The court assessed imminent danger as of the date Johnson filed this case. It concluded that the earlier quarantine conditions did not present an imminent danger when he filed the complaint in January 2023, and that the absence of the COVID-19 test under the circumstances described did not create an imminent danger of serious physical harm.
Ruling
The court denied Johnson leave to proceed without paying the filing fee. It vacated the Clerk’s deficiency notice, identified as ECF No. 2. Within 28 days after the order was filed, Johnson was required either to pay the full $350 filing fee or to show cause—meaning explain—why the three-strikes rule did not apply. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice to Johnson bringing his claims in a new civil-rights case in which he pays the filing fee.
The order decided only whether Johnson could proceed without paying the filing fee at that stage. It did not decide the merits of his civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.