Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Zuri Sana-Kabisa Young, a state prisoner described by the court as a frequent litigant in federal court, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jeffrey Macomber and others in the Northern District of California. Along with his complaint, Young moved to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which would allow him to litigate without prepaying the full filing fee. He also filed a motion for summary judgment.
The court identified a threshold problem with Young's request for pauper status: the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute bars a prisoner from bringing a civil action or appeal without prepaying fees if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated, had an action or appeal dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court catalogued six prior Young actions it considered strikes, including dismissals for failure to state a claim, a dismissal barred by Heck v. Humphrey with sovereign immunity findings, dismissals for failure to amend after leave was granted, and a dismissal for failure to correct a prolix complaint. The Ninth Circuit had twice previously recognized that Young had accrued at least three strikes.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not immediately dismiss the case or deny pauper status. Instead, following Andrews v. King, it ordered Young to show cause on or before January 4, 2027, why 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) does not bar his pauper status. Under Andrews, the prisoner must receive notice of the potential applicability of section 1915(g) and an opportunity to be heard before dismissal, but bears the ultimate burden of persuasion that the statute does not bar pauper status.
The court explained why each of the six dismissals counts as a strike under Ninth Circuit precedent: failure to state a claim under Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; a Heck bar apparent on the face of the complaint under Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; failure to amend after dismissal with leave under Harris v. Mangum; and failure to correct a prolix complaint after leave under Knapp v. Hogan.
Because Young did not appear to be under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the court ordered him to respond by January 4, 2027, labeled "RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE," or alternatively pay the full $405.00 filing fee by that date. Failure to respond or pay will result in dismissal without prejudice to refiling in a new paid complaint. The court also denied Young's motion for summary judgment without prejudice and directed the Clerk to terminate that motion.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless he shows he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- Before dismissing under the three-strikes rule, a court must give the prisoner notice of the dismissals it is considering as strikes and an opportunity to be heard, though the prisoner bears the burden of persuasion.
- Dismissals based on a Heck bar apparent on the face of the complaint, failure to amend after leave to amend, and failure to correct a prolix complaint after leave to do so all count as strikes under Ninth Circuit law.
- Even if the three-strikes rule bars pauper status, the prisoner may still pursue his claims by paying the full filing fee at the outset of the action.
- The court denied the prisoner's motion for summary judgment without prejudice while the show-cause process on pauper status remained pending.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural safeguards courts must follow before invoking the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule to deny in forma pauperis status. Rather than dismissing outright, the court laid out each prior dismissal it deemed a strike, cited the governing Ninth Circuit authority for counting each one, and gave the prisoner a defined opportunity to respond or pay the full fee.
The decision also underscores that the three-strikes bar turns on a prisoner's litigation history rather than the merits of the current action, and that even a barred prisoner retains access to the courts by prepaying fees.