1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME L. GRIMES, Case No.: 25-cv-03773-AJB-MSB
12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 14 AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
15 FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING MUNICIPAITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY, FEE REQUIRED BY 16 Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, a detainee at Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in 20 Riverside County, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos. 1–2.) 22 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 23 A. Legal Standard 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, 27 although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. 28 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee 1 Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 For prisoners like Plaintiff, however, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 5 amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP: 6 if [a] 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 7 was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 8 claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 9
10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ 11 provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). 12 “Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by § 1915(g) from 13 pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent 14 danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 15 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation that 16 the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”) 17 “Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were 18 dismissed ‘on the ground that (they were) frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim,” 19 Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1, “even if the district court styles such dismissal as a denial 20 of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” 21 O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). When courts “review a dismissal to 22 determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture 23 is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells 24 of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 25 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). 26 B. Discussion 27 Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating a 28 prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, but “in some instances, the district court docket 1 records may [also] be sufficient to show that a [prisoner’s] prior dismissal satisfies at least 2 one on the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Andrews v. King, 398 3 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). This is one of those instances, as a review of Plaintiff’s 4 district court dockets confirms he is no longer eligible to proceed IFP because while 5 incarcerated, he has had more than three prior prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed 6 for a “qualifying reason” under § 1915(g). Hoffman v. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th 7 Cir. 2019). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2), this Court may take judicial 8 notice of the docket records in Plaintiff’s prior cases. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120; 9 United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (stating that a court may take 10 judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as other courts’ records). 11 Based on its review of the dockets of many court proceedings, the Court finds 12 Plaintiff has had dozens of prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that 13 they were frivolous malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 14 Courts “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 15 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. 16 Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 17 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). As such, this Court takes judicial notice of federal 18 docket proceedings available on PACER and finds that Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, 19 currently identified as Douglas County Jail Inmate #202528807, has filed over 600 civil 20 actions in multiple federal district courts across the country dating back to 1986.1 21 Some specific examples of “strikes” filed and dismissed while Grimes was in 22 custody are: 23 (1) Grimes v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, et al., Civil Case No. 00cv0668-WBS- 24 JFM (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2000), Doc. No. 5 (Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint 25 sua sponte with leave to amend for “fail[ing] to state a cognizable claim for relief” pursuant 26
27 1 See https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/pages/search/results/parties.jsf?sid=ae66c80e47444979 28 1 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)); id. (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2000), Doc. No. 7 (Findings and 2 Recommendations [“F&Rs”] to dismiss civil action for failure to amend); id., (E.D. Cal. 3 Aug. 8, 2000), Doc. No. 9 (Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action);2 4 (2) Grimes v. CDC-CMF/Dept. of Mental Health, et al., Civil Case No. 5 00cv0781-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2000), Doc. No. 4 (F&R granting IFP and to 6 dismiss complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME L. GRIMES, Case No.: 25-cv-03773-AJB-MSB
12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 14 AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION
15 FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING MUNICIPAITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY, FEE REQUIRED BY 16 Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, a detainee at Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in 20 Riverside County, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos. 1–2.) 22 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 23 A. Legal Standard 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 $405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55, 27 although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. 28 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee 1 Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 For prisoners like Plaintiff, however, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 5 amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP: 6 if [a] 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 7 was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 8 claim upon which relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 9
10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ 11 provision.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). 12 “Once a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by § 1915(g) from 13 pursuing any other IFP action in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent 14 danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 15 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation that 16 the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”) 17 “Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were 18 dismissed ‘on the ground that (they were) frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim,” 19 Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1, “even if the district court styles such dismissal as a denial 20 of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” 21 O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). When courts “review a dismissal to 22 determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the dismissal or the procedural posture 23 is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether the dismissal ‘rang the PLRA bells 24 of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.’” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 25 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 615 (4th Cir. 2013)). 26 B. Discussion 27 Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating a 28 prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, but “in some instances, the district court docket 1 records may [also] be sufficient to show that a [prisoner’s] prior dismissal satisfies at least 2 one on the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Andrews v. King, 398 3 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). This is one of those instances, as a review of Plaintiff’s 4 district court dockets confirms he is no longer eligible to proceed IFP because while 5 incarcerated, he has had more than three prior prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed 6 for a “qualifying reason” under § 1915(g). Hoffman v. Pulido, 928 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th 7 Cir. 2019). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2), this Court may take judicial 8 notice of the docket records in Plaintiff’s prior cases. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120; 9 United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (stating that a court may take 10 judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as other courts’ records). 11 Based on its review of the dockets of many court proceedings, the Court finds 12 Plaintiff has had dozens of prisoner civil actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that 13 they were frivolous malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 14 Courts “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 15 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. 16 Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 17 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). As such, this Court takes judicial notice of federal 18 docket proceedings available on PACER and finds that Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, 19 currently identified as Douglas County Jail Inmate #202528807, has filed over 600 civil 20 actions in multiple federal district courts across the country dating back to 1986.1 21 Some specific examples of “strikes” filed and dismissed while Grimes was in 22 custody are: 23 (1) Grimes v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, et al., Civil Case No. 00cv0668-WBS- 24 JFM (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2000), Doc. No. 5 (Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint 25 sua sponte with leave to amend for “fail[ing] to state a cognizable claim for relief” pursuant 26
27 1 See https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/pages/search/results/parties.jsf?sid=ae66c80e47444979 28 1 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)); id. (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2000), Doc. No. 7 (Findings and 2 Recommendations [“F&Rs”] to dismiss civil action for failure to amend); id., (E.D. Cal. 3 Aug. 8, 2000), Doc. No. 9 (Order adopting F&Rs and dismissing action);2 4 (2) Grimes v. CDC-CMF/Dept. of Mental Health, et al., Civil Case No. 5 00cv0781-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2000), Doc. No. 4 (F&R granting IFP and to 6 dismiss complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous and for failing to 7 state a claim); id. (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2000), Doc. No. 6 (F&Rs to dismiss civil action for 8 failure to amend); id. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2000), Doc. No. 7 (Order adopting F&Rs and 9 dismissing action); 10 (3) Grimes v. Kelly, Civil Case No. 15cv1955-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 11 2015), Doc. No. 3 (Order denying IFP and dismissing complaint requesting Defendant 12 police officer be subject to random drug and lie detector tests and to be “prosecuted 13 paramilitarily” “for fai[ing] to provide a . . . claim for relief.”); 14 (4) Grimes v. Williams, et al., Civil Case No. 15cv3848-JKB (D. Md. Dec. 23, 15 2015), Doc. Nos.3–4 (Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint for failing to state a 16 claim); and 17 (5) Grimes v. Tate, et al., Civil Case No. 15cv3849-JKB (D. Md. Dec. 23, 2015), 18 Doc. Nos. 3–4 (Order granting IFP and dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim). 19 Federal court dockets also show Grimes has been denied leave to proceed IFP while 20 incarcerated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in numerous federal districts. See, e.g., 21 Grimes v. Wan, et al., Civil Case No. 07cv1726-CW (PR), 2007 WL 1988530, at *1 (N.D. 22 Cal. July 3, 2007) (“On May 18, 2000, this Court informed Plaintiff that while he is a 23 prisoner, he generally is ineligible to proceed [IFP] in federal court under the ‘three-strikes’ 24 25 26 2 See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court 27 dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts 28 1 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”); Grimes v. Roman, et al., Civil Case No. 17cv3288- 2 JSW (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2017), Doc. No.4 (noting that “[i]n 2003 alone, [Grimes’] failure 3 to comply [with court orders granting leave to pay the full filing fee and to state cognizable 4 claims for relief] resulted in the dismissal of approximately thirty-six actions under 5 § 1915(g).”); Grimes v. Lewis, et al., Civil Case No. 12cv3159-EEF-MLH (W.D. La. Mar. 6 13, 2013), Doc. No. 16 at 1 (“Court records show that [Grimes] has filed more tha[n] 350 7 complaints and appeals. Three or more of them have been dismissed as frivolous.”); Grimes 8 v. Medlock, et al., Civil Case No. 15cv0140-DCR (E.D. Ky. Sept. 16, 2015), Doc. No. 8 at 9 3 (“[T]he federal judiciary’s on-line database indicates that ‘Jerome L. Grimes’ has filed 10 almost 500 civil rights suits in the federal court system, mostly in California.”); Grimes v. 11 Engram, et al., Civil Case No. 17cv1480-PX (D. Md. June 5, 2017), Doc. No. 6 at 2 12 (denying IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), noting Grimes’s filing of “hundreds of cases 13 in the federal courts.”); Grimes v. Enter. Rent-a-Car Co. of Los Angeles, LLC, No. 22-cv- 14 00657-RSH-KSC, 2022 WL 3109570, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2022) (denying IFP 15 pursuant to § 1915(g), dismissing case and noting Grimes had previously filed more than 16 600 civil actions in federal courts). Thus, this Court finds that Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, 17 has had far more than three prior civil actions dismissed on the grounds that they were 18 frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted while 19 incarcerated. 20 As noted above, once a prisoner has accumulated three or more strikes, § 1915(g) 21 prohibits his pursuit of any subsequent IFP civil action or appeal in federal court unless he 22 faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055. Here, 23 Grimes raises claims regarding an alleged negligent towing of his vehicle. (Doc. No. 1 at 24 1–7.) Grimes alleges no facts in his Complaint suggesting he faced imminent danger of 25 serious physical injury at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP in this case. 26 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 27 Accordingly, the Court: (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 28 2) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice 1 ||}based on Plaintiffs failure to pay the full $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 2 || § 1914(a); (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous and not 3 || taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the 4 || Court to close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: January 16, 2026
8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6