Lewis v. French

Background

Daronta T. Lewis, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for alleged violations of his civil rights. He also filed motions asking to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee upfront if the prisoner has brought three or more earlier actions or appeals while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a legal claim, unless the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Prior dismissals and three-strikes finding

The court reviewed six of Lewis’s earlier prisoner cases and concluded that each dismissal counted as a strike under the statute. The earlier cases were identified by these docket numbers: No. 1:20-cv-00575-DAD-SKO, No. 2:18-cv-00196-JAM-CKD, No. 2:11-cv-01763-GGH, No. 2:09-cv-00195-FCD-DAD, No. 2:08-cv-01764-WBS-KJM, and No. 2:06-cv-01532-FCD-CMK. The court described the earlier dismissals as involving, among other things, duplicative litigation, failure to identify a legally recognizable claim, failure to identify a defendant personally involved in the alleged conduct, and failure to correct vague, conclusory, or overly lengthy pleadings after receiving permission to amend.

The court explained that Lewis had the burden of showing that the three-strikes rule did not bar him from proceeding without paying the fee upfront. Before making a final decision under that rule, however, the court was required to notify him of the potential strikes and give him an opportunity to respond.

Filing-fee issue and order

Lewis indicated that he had paid the $402 filing fee, but the court’s finance office had no record of receiving payment. The court had previously instructed him to provide either a receipt or copies of both sides of the check as proof of payment, but he had not done so.

The court therefore ordered Lewis to show cause in writing within 28 days why his motions to proceed without paying the fee upfront should not be denied and why the action should not be dismissed under the three-strikes provision. In the alternative, it directed him to provide proof that he had paid the full $402 filing fee within the same 28-day period.

The court stated that after Lewis responded or provided proof of payment, it would conduct an initial review of the complaint and address the pending motions. It warned that failure to respond on time or to pay the full fee, or provide proof of payment, could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the merits of Lewis’s civil-rights claims and did not yet deny his motions or dismiss the action.