JEROME L. GRIMES, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2291-RBM-MMP
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) CORONER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, JOHN DOE, MUNICPALITY OF Defendants.
Plaintiff, Jerome L. Grimes, a detainee at Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in Riverside County, has filed a pro se Complaint. (Docs. 1–2.1) Plaintiff, however, has not filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter, nor has he paid the initial civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). For the reasons discussed below, this case is DISMISSED. 1 The Complaint was filed on August 28, 2025 (Doc. 1) and a Supplement was filed on September 15, 2025 (Doc. 2.) I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS Any person filing a civil case such as this one must pay a filing fee of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The case may go forward without the plaintiff prepaying the entire filing fee, though, if the court grants him permission to proceed IFP. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”); cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid.”). To pursue a case without paying the filing fee, a plaintiff must file an affidavit which includes a statement of all assets, or things of value, the plaintiff possesses and must demonstrate the plaintiff’s inability to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); see also Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). And plaintiffs who are incarcerated at the time they file their civil case must also submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Under the current version of the IFP statute, “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” in increments. Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)). Here, Plaintiff has not paid the $405 filing and administrative fee required to begin this civil action. Nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, his case cannot go forward. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051. Even if Plaintiff had filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, the Court finds that he is not entitled to proceed IFP in this action for the reasons set forth below. A. Legal Standard “All 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 Grimes, however, “face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing fee,” in “monthly installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended § 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP in cases where 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 can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1. “Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “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). When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” El- Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, § 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he “makes a plausible allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051‒52 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). “[T]he PLRA [also] requires a nexus between [any] alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the prisoner’s complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2022). Thus, to qualify for an exception, “a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” Id. at 701. B. Discussion While Grimes has not moved to proceed IFP in this case, the Court finds it would be futile for him to do so. Based on review of the dockets of many court proceedings, the Court finds Grimes has had dozens of prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Courts “‘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)). As such, this Court takes judicial notice of federal docket proceedings available on PACER and finds that Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, currently identified as Douglas County Jail Inmate #202528807, has filed over 600 civil actions in multiple federal district courts across the country dating back to 1986.2 Some specific examples of “strikes” filed and dismissed while Grimes was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JEROME L. GRIMES, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2291-RBM-MMP
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) CORONER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, JOHN DOE, MUNICPALITY OF Defendants.
Plaintiff, Jerome L. Grimes, a detainee at Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in Riverside County, has filed a pro se Complaint. (Docs. 1–2.1) Plaintiff, however, has not filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter, nor has he paid the initial civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). For the reasons discussed below, this case is DISMISSED. 1 The Complaint was filed on August 28, 2025 (Doc. 1) and a Supplement was filed on September 15, 2025 (Doc. 2.) I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS Any person filing a civil case such as this one must pay a filing fee of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The case may go forward without the plaintiff prepaying the entire filing fee, though, if the court grants him permission to proceed IFP. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Cervantes”); cf. Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[W]here [an] IFP application is denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid.”). To pursue a case without paying the filing fee, a plaintiff must file an affidavit which includes a statement of all assets, or things of value, the plaintiff possesses and must demonstrate the plaintiff’s inability to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); see also Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). And plaintiffs who are incarcerated at the time they file their civil case must also submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Under the current version of the IFP statute, “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” in increments. Hymas, 73 F.4th at 767 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)). Here, Plaintiff has not paid the $405 filing and administrative fee required to begin this civil action. Nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, his case cannot go forward. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051. Even if Plaintiff had filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, the Court finds that he is not entitled to proceed IFP in this action for the reasons set forth below. A. Legal Standard “All 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 Grimes, however, “face an additional hurdle.” Id. In addition to requiring prisoners to “pay the full amount of a filing fee,” in “monthly installments” or “increments” as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)(b), the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended § 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP in cases where 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 can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1. “Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “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). When courts “review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” El- Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, § 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he “makes a plausible allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051‒52 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). “[T]he PLRA [also] requires a nexus between [any] alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the prisoner’s complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2022). Thus, to qualify for an exception, “a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” Id. at 701. B. Discussion While Grimes has not moved to proceed IFP in this case, the Court finds it would be futile for him to do so. Based on review of the dockets of many court proceedings, the Court finds Grimes has had dozens of prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Courts “‘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)). As such, this Court takes judicial notice of federal docket proceedings available on PACER and finds that Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, currently identified as Douglas County Jail Inmate #202528807, has filed over 600 civil actions in multiple federal district courts across the country dating back to 1986.2 Some specific examples of “strikes” filed and dismissed while Grimes was in custody are: (1) Grimes v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., et al., Civil Case No. 2:00-cv-00668-WBS- JFM (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2000) (Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint sua sponte with leave to amend for “fail[ing] to state a cognizable claim for relief” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)) (Doc. 5); id., (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2000) (Findings and Recommendations [“F&Rs”] to dismiss civil action for failure to amend) (Doc. 7); id., (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2000 Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action) (Doc. 9);3 2 See https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/pages/search/results/parties.jsf?sid=ae66c80e47444979 8769281006232978 (last visited Sept. 5, 2025).
3 See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave (2) Grimes v. CDC-CMF/Dep’t of Mental Health, et al., Civil Case No. 2:00-cv- 00781-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2000) (F&R granting IFP and dismissing complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous and for failing to state a claim) (Doc. 4); id., (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2000) (F&Rs to dismiss civil action for failure to amend) (Doc. 6); id. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2000) (Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action) (Doc. 7); (3) Grimes v. Kelly, Civil Case No. 6:15-cv-01955-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2015) (Order denying IFP and dismissing complaint requesting Defendant police officer be subject to random drug and lie detector tests and to be “prosecuted paramilitarily” “for fai[ing] to provide a … claim for relief.”) (Doc. 3); (4) Grimes v. Williams, et al., Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-03848-JKB (D. Md. Dec. 23, 2015) (Memorandum and Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim for relief) (Docs. 3, 4); and (5) Grimes v. Tate, et al., Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-03849-JKB (D. Md. Dec. 23, 2015) (Memorandum and Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim for relief) (Docs. 3, 4). Federal court dockets also show Grimes has been denied leave to proceed IFP while incarcerated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in numerous federal districts. See e.g., Grimes v. Wan, et al., Civil Case No. 07-cv-1726-CW (PR), 2007 WL 1988530, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2007) (“On May 18, 2000, this Court informed Plaintiff that while he is a prisoner, he generally is ineligible to proceed [IFP] in federal court under the ‘three- strikes’ provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”); Grimes v. Roman, et al., Civil Case No. 17- cv-03288-JSW (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2017) (Doc. 4) (noting that “[i]n 2003 alone, [Grimes’s] failure to comply [with court orders granting leave to pay the full filing fee and to state cognizable claims for relief] resulted in the dismissal of approximately thirty-six actions
to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”). under § 1915(g).”); Grimes v. Lewis, et al., Civil Case No. 5:12-cv-03159-EEF-MLH (W.D. La. March 13, 2013) (Doc. 16 at 1) (“Court records show that [Grimes] has filed more tha[n] 350 complaints and appeals. Three or more of them have been dismissed as frivolous.”); Grimes v. Medlock, et al., Civil Case No. 6:15-cv-00140-DCR (E.D. Ky. Sept. 16, 2015) (“[T]he federal judiciary’s on-line database indicates that ‘Jerome L. Grimes’ has filed almost 500 civil rights suits in the federal court system, mostly in California.”) (Doc. 8 at 3); Grimes v. Engram, et al., Civil Case No. 8:17-cv-01480-PX (D. Md. June 5, 2017) (denying IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), noting Grimes’s filing of “hundreds of cases in the federal courts.”) (Doc. 6 at 2); Grimes v. Enter. Rent-a-Car Co. of Los Angeles, LLC, No. 22-cv-00657-RSH-KSC, 2022 WL 3109570, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2022) (denying IFP pursuant to § 1915(g), dismissing case and noting Grimes had previously filed more than 600 civil actions in federal courts). Thus, this Court finds that Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, has while incarcerated had far more than three prior civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As noted above, once a prisoner has accumulated three or more strikes, § 1915(g) prohibits his pursuit of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055. Here, while the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint are difficult to discern, he appears to raise claims of “economic espionage,” “invasion of privacy” and “illegal [use of] technology.” (See Doc. 1 at 1–2.) Grimes, however, alleges no facts in his Complaint suggesting he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP in this case. For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Grimes’s failure to pay the full statutory and administrative $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); }and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Dated: September 22, 2025 Fe Le ; ? L HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE AAE AAA1 DDAT □□□□