United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G), (DOC. NO. 2); AND (2)
DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY
FILING FEE AS REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(A)
Anthony J. Battaglia United States District Judge.
Stephen Ullrich (“Petitioner”), currently
incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution in
Boise, Idaho, has filed an incomprehensible petition for writ
of mandamus requesting declaratory relief that “legal
disabilities, [sic] frustrate, hinder, or chill his
access to administrative and judicial grievances, ” as
well as injunctive relief granting him access to certain
records. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) He also seeks relief in the form
of proceeding against Defendants for their allegedly wrongful
dismissals of the multiple frivolous lawsuits he has filed.
Petitioner has filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in this case to exempt him
from prepaying the filing fee. (Doc. No. 2.)
persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.”
Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657
F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Petitioner,
however, “face an additional hurdle.”
Id. That is, prisoners are required to “pay
the full amount of a filing fee” in monthly
installments or increments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b);
Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627, 629 (2016);
Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.
2015). However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”) amended § 1915 to preclude the
privilege of proceeding IFP
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[.]
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly
known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.”
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir.
are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a
prisoner, which were dismissed ‘on the ground that
[they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a
claim[, ]” id., “even if the district
court styles such dismissal as a denial of the
prisoner’s application to file the action without
prepayment of the full filing fee, ” O’Neal
v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a
prisoner has accumulated three strikes, § 1915(g)
prohibits him or her from pursuing any other IFP action in
federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent
danger of serious physical injury” at the time the
action is instituted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The objective
of the PLRA 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).
initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed
Petitioner’s complaint and has determined that it does
not contain any plausible allegations to suggest he
“faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical
injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007)
[hereinafter Cervantes]. Instead, Petitioner appears
to claim he is being denied access to the courts based on the
dismissal of his prior lawsuits.
“‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts,
both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
proceedings have a direct relation to matters at
issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d
1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic,
Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Accordingly, the Court judicially notices the fact that
Petitioner, Stephen Ullrich, identified as Idaho Department
of Corrections Inmate #56989, has had at least seven prior
prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they
were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted:
1. Ullrich v. Idaho, Civil Case No.
1:05-cv-00340-LMB (D. Idaho Dec. 7, 2005) (order dismissing
complaint for failing to state a claim per 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No. 7]) (strike one);
2. Ullrich v. Barnhart, Civil Case No.
1:06-cv-00080-EJL (D. Idaho May 1, 2006) (initial review
order denying IFP and dismissing complaint for failure to
state a claim per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) [Doc. No.
10]) (strike two);
3. Ullrich v. Canyon Cnty. Commr’s, Civil Case
No. 1:06-cv-00095-EJL (D. Idaho May 30, 2006) (order
dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(2) [Doc. No. 6]) (strike
4. Ullrich v. Canyon Cnty., Civil Case No.
1:06-cv-00320-EJL (D. Idaho Oct. 16, 2006) (initial review
order dismissing case as legally frivolous pursuant to 28