The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In each of these cases,*fn1 plaintiff Ernest Miller, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending in four of these cases are plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915; in the fifth case, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. Plaintiff is subject to the "three strikes rule" set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which precludes a plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis absent a showing he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. For the reasons described below, the court recommends that plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, that the order granting in forma pauperis be vacated, and that plaintiff be permitted to proceed in a given case only if he pays the $350 filing fee. The court also recommends that plaintiff's subsequently-filed motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.
The "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") requires a court to deny in forma pauperis ("IFP") status to a prisoner who "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 can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).*fn2 Thus, "[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three strikes rule[.]" Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). The purpose of this rule is to further "the congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court." Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997); accord, Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) ("Section 1915(g) does not prohibit prisoners from accessing the courts to protect their rights. Inmates are still able to file claims -- they are only required to pay for filing those claims.").
"[T]he district court docket records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike. However, in many instances, the docket records will not reflect the basis for the dismissal. In these instances, the [court must examine] . . . court records or other documentation that will allow [it] to determine that a prior case was dismissed because it was 'frivolous, malicious or fail[ed] to state a claim.' § 1915(g)." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005).*fn3 In making this determination, the court is guided by the following:
The PLRA does not define the terms "frivolous," or "malicious," nor does it define dismissals for failure to "state a claim upon which relief could be granted." We have held that the phrase "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," as used elsewhere in § 1915, "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)." See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (interpreting § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and employing the same de novo standard of review applied to Rule 12(b)(6) motions). Yet there is no Ninth Circuit case law on the 1996 Amendments to the PLRA that explains precisely what the terms "frivolous" or "malicious" mean. In defining these terms, we look to their "ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, a case is frivolous if it is "of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 913 (1993); see also Goland v. United States, 903 F.2d 1247, 1258 (9th Cir. 1990) (adopting a definition of "frivolous"). A case is malicious if it was filed with the "intention or desire to harm another." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1367 (1993).
Andrews v. King, supra, 398 F.3d at 1121. See also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (in forma pauperis statute "accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless").
However, in forma pauperis status must be granted to a "three strikes plaintiff" who demonstrates that he or she is in "imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Application of this exception requires that the complaint, liberally construed, plausibly allege that, at the time of filing the complaint, "prison officials continue with a practice that has injured [plaintiff ] or others similarly situated in the past." Andrews v. Cervantes, supra, 493 F.3d at 1055, 1056--57 (citations omitted).
Finally, in a properly filed case, a preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that would impair the court's ability to grant effective relief in the pending action. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). "The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate 'that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (2008). In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, a preliminary injunction "must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
PLAINTIFF'S LITIGATION HISTORY
Judicial notice*fn4 of the "National Pro Se 'Three Strikes' Database"*fn5 demonstrates that, prior to filing the instant actions, plaintiff Ernest Miller (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Identification Number T97203) had four prior "strikes" based on the dismissal of the following cases for failure to state a claim: 1) Miller v. High Desert Prison, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-1437 GEB CMK P, dismissed on July 24, 2007;*fn6 2) Miller v. Access Securepak, Case No. 2:07-cv- 1538 FCD CMK P, dismissed on December 19, 2007;*fn7 3) Miller v. King Harris Publications Magazine, Case No. 1:07-cv-1152 LJO GSA, dismissed on March 12, 2008;*fn8 and 4) Miller v. California State Prison Corcoran, et al., 1:08-cv-0594 OWW SMS P, dismissed on May 9, 2008.*fn9
Additionally, the court takes judicial notice of Miller v. McGrath, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-0070 HWG KSC P. On October 7, 2009, the magistrate judge found, relying on the same cases listed in the National Database, that plaintiff has three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and recommended that the court's prior order granting in forma pauperis status be vacated and the action dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff refiling the action with concurrent submission of the filing fee. Id., Dkt. No. 19. It was further recommended that plaintiff's many additional filings be denied as moot. On November 9, 2009, the district judge adopted these findings and recommendations and judgment was entered accordingly. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22.*fn10
Similar rulings were recently made in another of plaintiff's actions, Miller v. Brown, et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-3403 MCE GGH P. On January 28, 2010, the magistrate judge, relying on the cases listed in the National Database, as well as Miller v. McGrath, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-0070 HWG KSC P, recommended that plaintiff be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), be directed to pay the filing fee within 21 days, and that his motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. (Dkt. No. 9.) The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations on February 25, 2010. (Dkt. No. 12.)
Review of this court's electronic database demonstrates that plaintiff has filed thirty cases in this district since October 2003. In 2009, plaintiff, who remains incarcerated, filed eight separate civil rights ...