United States District Court, N.D. California
July 28, 2004.
RUDOLPH S. FISHER, Plaintiff(s),
MICHELE CASTANO, et al., Defendant(s).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VAUGHN WALKER, District Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Mateo County Jail and a
frequent litigant in federal court, has filed a pro se civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the adequacy of
his meals. Among other things, plaintiff alleges that the meals
have caused his cholesterol level to rise and made him vomit.
Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") was enacted,
and became effective, on April 26, 1996. It provides that a
prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that
was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless
the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). "Section 1915(g)'s cap on prior
dismissed claims applies to claims dismissed both before and
after the [PLRA's] effective date." Tierney v. Kupers,
128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir 1997). Plaintiff has had three or more prior prisoner actions
dismissed by this court on the grounds that they are frivolous,
malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See, e.g., Fisher v. Wright, No C 95-4134 CAL (PR) (ND
Cal Dec 13, 1995) (order of dismissal for failure to state a
claim); Fisher v. Goldman, No C 01-2911 VRW (PR) (ND Cal July
31, 2001) (same); Fisher v. Tucker, No C 01-3179 VRW (PR) (ND
Cal Oct 16, 2001) (same); see also Fisher v. Smith, No C 04-2080
VRW (PR) (ND Cal June 15, 2004) (order of dismissal for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies). Plaintiff therefore may
proceed in forma pauperis only if he is seeking relief from a
danger of serious physical injury which is imminent at the time
of filing. See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir
2001) (en banc); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th
Cir 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir 1998);
Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir 1998). He is not.
Although regrettable, plaintiff's allegations do not involve an
"imminent" danger of serious physical injury.
Because plaintiff has had three or more prior dismissals and is
not under imminent danger of serious physical injury, his request
to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 2) is DENIED and the instant
action is DISMISSED without prejudice to bringing it in a paid
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending
motions as moot. No fee is due at this time.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.