1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GABRIEL PIES LONSDALE, Case No. 25-cv1740-BTM-MMP Booking No. 25707540, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 13 AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR BELINDA ARJIS, CORPORAL DAVIS, FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 15 FUKUE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY REQUIRED BY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 16 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
17 Defendants. [ECF. No. 2] 18 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff Gabriel Pies Lonsdale (“Plaintiff” or “Lonsdale”), who is detained at the 22 San Diego Central Jail and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. 24 In his Complaint, Lonsdale alleges his constitutional rights were violated when Defendants 25 failed to provide him with mental health counseling and denied him a “printout” of voodoo 26 and freemason “lettering” to help him pray. See id. at 3. He seeks $400 million in general 27 and punitive damages. Id. at 7. For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES 28 Lonsdale’s IFP motion and DISMISSES this civil action. 1 II. IFP MOTION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 Generally, a person filing a civil case such as this one must pay a filing fee of $405.1 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Absent fee payment, the action may proceed only if the filer 5 seeks, and the court grants, leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 6 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”). “All persons, 7 not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 657 8 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Lonsdale, however, “face an additional 9 hurdle.” Id. 10 “To help staunch a ‘flood of nonmeritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation 11 Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule.” 12 Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020) (quoting Jones v. 13 Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007)). “That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing 14 suit in forma pauperis (IFP)—that is, without first paying the filing fee—if he has had three 15 or more prior suits ‘dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or 16 fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(g)); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2022). “A negative consequence that 18 may impact a prisoner who files [] frivolous complaint[s] is a restriction on his ability to 19 file future cases without prepaying filing fees.” Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1139 20 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style 22 of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is 23 whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a 24
25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil plaintiffs must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 27 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 28 1 claim.’” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. 2 Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). In other words, “[a] strike-call under Section 3 1915(g) [] hinges exclusively on the basis for the dismissal, regardless of the decision’s 4 prejudicial effect.” Lomax, 140 S. Ct. at 1724–25. “[I]f a case was not dismissed on one of 5 the specific enumerated grounds, it does not count as a strike under § 1915(g).” Harris v. 6 Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 673 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Hoffman v. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147, 7 1152 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]o qualify as a strike for § 1915(g), a case as a whole, not just 8 some of its individual claims, must be dismissed for a qualifying reason.”) (citing 9 Washington v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1057 (9th Cir. 2016)). 10 Once a prisoner accumulates three strikes, however, § 1915(g) precludes his ability to 11 proceed IFP in any other civil actions or appeals in federal court unless he “makes a 12 plausible allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time 13 of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051‒52 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 14 B. Discussion 15 Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating a 16 prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, but “in some instances, the district court docket 17 records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one on the criteria 18 under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 19 (9th Cir. 2005). This is one of those instances, as public court dockets show Lonsdale is no 20 longer eligible to proceed IFP because while incarcerated, as he has had more than three 21 prior prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, 22 or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 23 Evidence 201(b)(2), this Court may take judicial notice of the docket records in Lonsdale’s 24 prior cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (stating a court may 25 take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as other courts’ records). The 26 following records show Lonsdale, who is also known as “Gabriel Pies-Lonsdale,” 27 accumulated three qualifying strikes before he filed this case: 28 (1) Lonsdale v. Gempler, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01589-WJM-NRN (D. 1 Col. June 1, 2020) (Report & Recommendation [R&R] to dismiss Third Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 2 P. 12(b)(6)) [ECF No. 48]; Id., (D. Col. July 1, 2020) (Order adopting 3 R&R and dismissing case) [ECF No. 49]; 4 (2) Pies-Lonsdale v. Banachi, Case No. 3:22-cv-00310-LAB-BLM, 2022 5 WL 1478510, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2022) (Order granting IFP, dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GABRIEL PIES LONSDALE, Case No. 25-cv1740-BTM-MMP Booking No. 25707540, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 13 AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR BELINDA ARJIS, CORPORAL DAVIS, FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 15 FUKUE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY REQUIRED BY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 16 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
17 Defendants. [ECF. No. 2] 18 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff Gabriel Pies Lonsdale (“Plaintiff” or “Lonsdale”), who is detained at the 22 San Diego Central Jail and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. 24 In his Complaint, Lonsdale alleges his constitutional rights were violated when Defendants 25 failed to provide him with mental health counseling and denied him a “printout” of voodoo 26 and freemason “lettering” to help him pray. See id. at 3. He seeks $400 million in general 27 and punitive damages. Id. at 7. For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES 28 Lonsdale’s IFP motion and DISMISSES this civil action. 1 II. IFP MOTION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 Generally, a person filing a civil case such as this one must pay a filing fee of $405.1 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Absent fee payment, the action may proceed only if the filer 5 seeks, and the court grants, leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 6 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”). “All persons, 7 not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 657 8 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Lonsdale, however, “face an additional 9 hurdle.” Id. 10 “To help staunch a ‘flood of nonmeritorious’ prisoner litigation, the Prison Litigation 11 Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) established what has become known as the three-strikes rule.” 12 Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020) (quoting Jones v. 13 Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007)). “That rule generally prevents a prisoner from bringing 14 suit in forma pauperis (IFP)—that is, without first paying the filing fee—if he has had three 15 or more prior suits ‘dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or 16 fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(g)); Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2022). “A negative consequence that 18 may impact a prisoner who files [] frivolous complaint[s] is a restriction on his ability to 19 file future cases without prepaying filing fees.” Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1139 20 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style 22 of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is 23 whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a 24
25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil plaintiffs must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 27 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 28 1 claim.’” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. 2 Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). In other words, “[a] strike-call under Section 3 1915(g) [] hinges exclusively on the basis for the dismissal, regardless of the decision’s 4 prejudicial effect.” Lomax, 140 S. Ct. at 1724–25. “[I]f a case was not dismissed on one of 5 the specific enumerated grounds, it does not count as a strike under § 1915(g).” Harris v. 6 Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 673 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Hoffman v. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147, 7 1152 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]o qualify as a strike for § 1915(g), a case as a whole, not just 8 some of its individual claims, must be dismissed for a qualifying reason.”) (citing 9 Washington v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1057 (9th Cir. 2016)). 10 Once a prisoner accumulates three strikes, however, § 1915(g) precludes his ability to 11 proceed IFP in any other civil actions or appeals in federal court unless he “makes a 12 plausible allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time 13 of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051‒52 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 14 B. Discussion 15 Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating a 16 prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, but “in some instances, the district court docket 17 records may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one on the criteria 18 under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 19 (9th Cir. 2005). This is one of those instances, as public court dockets show Lonsdale is no 20 longer eligible to proceed IFP because while incarcerated, as he has had more than three 21 prior prisoner civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, 22 or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 23 Evidence 201(b)(2), this Court may take judicial notice of the docket records in Lonsdale’s 24 prior cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (stating a court may 25 take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as other courts’ records). The 26 following records show Lonsdale, who is also known as “Gabriel Pies-Lonsdale,” 27 accumulated three qualifying strikes before he filed this case: 28 (1) Lonsdale v. Gempler, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01589-WJM-NRN (D. 1 Col. June 1, 2020) (Report & Recommendation [R&R] to dismiss Third Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 2 P. 12(b)(6)) [ECF No. 48]; Id., (D. Col. July 1, 2020) (Order adopting 3 R&R and dismissing case) [ECF No. 49]; 4 (2) Pies-Lonsdale v. Banachi, Case No. 3:22-cv-00310-LAB-BLM, 2022 5 WL 1478510, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2022) (Order granting IFP, dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) and granting leave to amend) [ECF No. 7 5]; id. (S.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022) (Order dismissing civil action for failing to amend and/or prosecute) [ECF No. 9];2 and 8 (3) Pies-Lonsdale v. Lemus, Case No. 3:22-cv-00309 TWR (JLB), 2023 9 WL 300188, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2023) [ECF No. 18] (Order 10 granting motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and directing Plaintiff to show cause why case should not be dismissed for 11 failure to prosecute); id. (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2023) (Order dismissing 12 civil action for failure to prosecute) [ECF No. 19].3
13 Because Lonsdale accumulated these prior qualifying dismissals while incarcerated, 14 he may not proceed IFP unless he meets § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger” exception. To do 15 so, his pleading must contain a “plausible allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of 16 serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). The alleged danger must also “stem[] from the violations of law alleged 18 in [the] complaint.” Ray, 31 F.4th at 701. 19 20
21 22 2 See Harris, 863 F.3d at 1142 (finding that a failure to amend does “not negate the determination already made by the Court that the complaint [plaintiff] had filed . . . failed to state a claim.”). “A prisoner may 23 not avoid incurring strikes simply by declining to take advantage of [an] opportunit[y] to amend.” Id. at 1143. 24
25 3 Lonsdale has recently added two additional strikes in Lonsdale v. Stephan, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv- 00733-TWR-VET (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (Order dismissing First Amended Complaint for failure to 26 state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) without further leave to amend) [ECF No. 6], and in Lonsdale v. El Cajon Police Dept., et al., Case No. 25-cv-01619-BAS-JLB, 2025 WL 27 2646163 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025) [ECF No. 4] (Order denying IFP as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and dismissing civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)), but both these qualifying 28 l Lonsdale’s Complaint lacks any plausible allegations that he faced imminent danger 2 || of serious physical injury at the time of filing. Imminent danger requires an allegation that 3 ||a harm is “ready to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one's head.” Cervantes, 493 4 ||F.3d at 1056. While Plaintiff states he was twice “skipped” over for mental health 5 counseling sessions, he makes no allegation that he faced imminent physical injury. See 6 || Hernandez v. Williams, 2021 WL 1317376, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (stating the imminent 7 danger exception “cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past injury or generalized 8 || fears of possible future harm’’). Moreover, Plaintiffs allegation he was denied printouts of 9 || “voodoo prayers” is insufficient to suggest imminent danger. See e.g., Uhuru v. Velasquez, 10 }}2021 WL 619768, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (finding vague allegations related to practice of 11 |/religion, in-cell worship, denial of outdoor exercise insufficient to meet imminent danger 12 || exception). Consequently, Lonsdale does not qualify for a § 1915(g) exception and may 13 proceed IFP in this case. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055; Ray, 31 F.4th at 701. 14 Ht. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons explained, the Court: (1) DENIES Lonsdale’s Motion to Proceed 16 || IFP [ECF No. 2] as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (2) DISMISSES this civil action 17 || without prejudice based on his failure to pay the full $405 civil filing fee required by 28 18 |}U.S.C. § 1914(a); (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a 20 || judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: November 20, 2025 Tid ‘
24 Hon. Bat Ted Moskowitz 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28 5 a oe