Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00952-SI

Document 8

Filed 05/08/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In Re. 10 VINCENT ROSENBALM, No. C 08-279 SI (pr) No. C 08-751 SI (pr) No. C 08-952 SI (pr) No. C 08-1360 SI (pr) No. C 08-1474 SI (pr) No. C 08-1503 SI (pr) No. C 08-1504 SI (pr) No. C 08-1603 SI (pr) ORDER OF DISMISSAL On April 4, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff, Vincent Rosenbalm, to show cause why UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff.

12 13 14 15

/

16 these actions should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner 17 may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if the prisoner has, on 18 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or 19 appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 20 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 21 imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order identified four 22 prior dismissals that appeared to count under § 1915(g) and ordered Rosenbalm to show cause 23 why pauper status should not be denied and the referenced actions dismissed. The order further 24 stated that Rosenbalm also could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline for 25 each of the referenced cases. 26 Rosenbalm did not pay the filing fees, did not show that any of the prior dismissals could 27 not be counted under § 1915(g), and did not otherwise show cause why these cases could not be 28 dismissed. He filed several documents that claimed, among other things, that he was in

Case 3:08-cv-00952-SI

Document 8

Filed 05/08/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 imminent danger, but the assertions plainly demonstrate that he was not under imminent danger 2 at the time of filing of the complaints in these actions. Events that occurred months and years 3 before the complaints were filed ­ such as Rosenbalm's statements about events in May 2007, 4 September 2007 and in 1998 ­ do not suffice to show a plausible claim that he was in imminent 5 danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaints. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 6 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 Rosenbalm has not shown that any of the prior dismissals cannot properly be counted as

8 dismissals under § 1915(g) and has not shown that the referenced actions should not be 9 dismissed. The court finds that the four prior dismissals identified in the order to show cause 10 count as dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g).

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Accordingly, Rosenbalm's in forma pauperis application is DENIED in each of these

12 actions and each of these actions is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The dismissal 13 of each of these actions is without prejudice to Rosenbalm asserting his claims in an action for 14 which he pays the full filing fee at the time he files his complaint. In light of the dismissals, all 15 other pending motions are DISMISSED as moot. The clerk shall close the file for each of the 16 referenced actions. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

18 Dated: May 8, 2008 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

Case 3:08-cv-00952-SI

Document 8-2

Filed 05/08/2008

Page 1 of 1