1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL BALZARINI, 11 Case No. 19-cv-07661-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 14 Defendant. 15

16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action in forma pauperis because he has filed 19 at least three federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or on grounds that 20 they failed to state a claim for relief. He was ordered to show cause why pauper status 21 should not be barred, but he has not filed any response to that order. Accordingly, this 22 federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff bringing his claims 23 in a new paid complaint. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, filed this federal civil 26 rights action under

along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 27 (IFP) under

. He was ordered to show cause why the action should not be 1 action IFP “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or 2 detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was 3 dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical 5 injury.” (Dkt. No. 18.) The order identified three prior federal court actions (“strikes”) 6 that appeared to count under section 1915(g) and allowed plaintiff an opportunity to 7 respond, as required by Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005). The order also 8 informed plaintiff he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline. 9 The strikes identified were: 10 (1) Balzarini v. Bank of America, No. 2:95-cv-02279-UA (C.D. Cal. April 7, 1995); 11 (2) Balzarini v. Hirsch, No. 1:00-cv-06736-OWW-LJO (E.D. Cal. October 11, 12 2000); 13 (3) Balzarini v. Schwarzenegger, No. 3:07-cv-02800-MHP (N.D. Cal. May 30, 14 2007); 15 (4) Balzarini v. Goodright, No. 3:09-cv-01796-MHP (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2007). 16 The Ninth Circuit determined that the first three suits are strikes, in the course of 17 ruling on one of plaintiff’s appeals. Balzarini v. Lewis, No. 15-16530 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 18 2016), Dkt. No. 11. The appellate court informed plaintiff of the strikes and ordered him 19 to pay the full filing fee.

When he did not do so, the appeal was dismissed. Dkt. No. 20 12. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was rejected. Dkt. No. 16. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff has not filed any response to the order to show cause. He therefore has not 23 shown any reason that the restrictions of section 1915(g) should not be imposed. He has 24 failed to (i) pay the filing fee; (ii) show that any of the strikes do not qualify under section 25 1915(g); (iii) show that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception; or (iv) otherwise 26 show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 27 1 Accordingly, plaintiff’s IFP application is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 5.) This civil rights 2 action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff bringing his claims in a new paid 3 complaint. 4 CONCLUSION 5 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and the IFP motion is DENIED. The 6 Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close 7 the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May _8__, 2020 _________________________ 10 RICHARD SEEBORG 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27