United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was directed to provide a completed application on the appropriate form to support her request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. Although plaintiff filed a corrected, completed application, ECF No. 9, the court's review of plaintiff's litigation history demonstrates that she is a three strikes litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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).
The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). See Rodriguez v. Cook , 169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir.1999). Review of court records, of which this court takes judicial notice,  demonstrates that plaintiff has previously been determined to have been foreclosed under § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis in a prisoner civil rights action. In Williams v. Gomez, No. 2:11-cv-0426 GEB EFB P, the court found that the following cases qualified as strikes:
Williams v. Andrews, 1:01-cv-6222 REC HGB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2002) (dismissed by order stating "action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted");
Williams v. Wood, 1:01-cv-6151 REC LJO P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2002) (complaint dismissed with prejudice upon screening for failure to state a claim);
Williams v. Rendon, 1:01-cv-5891 AWI SMS P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2002) ("complaint... dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim").
In addition, other court records reveal that the following of plaintiff's cases have also been dismissed for failure to state a claim:
Williams v. California State Prison-Corcoran, 1:99-cv-6612 OWW SMS P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2000) (case "dismissed in its entirety, without leave to amend, for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted");
Williams v. Lopez, 1: 99-cv-6648 REC SMS P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2000) (case "dismissed in its entirety, without leave to amend, for plaintiff's failure to state a claim ...