1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL BALZARINI, 11 Case No. 20-cv-07833-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff is barred from bringing this

action in forma pauperis 19 because he has filed at least three federal actions that were dismissed as frivolous, 20 malicious, or on grounds that they failed to state a claim for relief. He was ordered to 21 show cause why pauper status should not be barred under

(g), but his 22 response is insufficient. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED 23 without prejudice to plaintiff bringing his claims 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

. (Dkt. No. 1, 4, and 9.) The IFP motion was granted. (Dkt. 1 able to proceed as a pauper. 2 Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under 3

(g), which provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP “if the 4 prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 5 brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 6 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 7 granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Order 8 to Show Cause (OSC), Dkt. No. 15 at 1-2.) Relying on the statute’s command that “in no 9 event” may such a prisoner proceed, the Ninth Circuit explained that this bar is triggered 10 by a prisoner’s history of filing frivolous litigation rather than by the merits of the current 11 action. See El-Shaddai v. Zamora,

(9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in 12 original). 13 The order identified six prior federal court actions (“strikes”) that appeared to count 14 under section 1915(g) and allowed plaintiff an opportunity to respond, as required by 15 Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005). (OSC, Dkt. No. 15 at 2-3.) The order 16 also informed plaintiff he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline. 17 (Id. at 3.) 18 The strikes identified were: 19 (1) Balzarini v. Bank of America, No. 2:95-cv-02279-UA (C.D. Cal. April 7, 1995); 20 (2) Balzarini v. Hirsch, No. 1:00-cv-06736-OWW-LJO (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 21 2001) (suit dismissed for failure to state a claim); 22 (3) Balzarini v. Schwarzenegger, No. 3:07-cv-02800-MHP (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 23 2010) (suit dismissed for failure to state a claim); 24 (4) Balzarini v. Goodright, No. 3:09-cv-01796-MHP (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2009) 25 (suit dismissed for failure to state a claim); 26 (5) Balzarini v. Cambria, No. 05-15643 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2005) (appellate court 27 affirmed the district court’s revocation of IFP status because the appeal was not 1 taken in good faith; appeal dismissed for failure to pay filing fee);1 2 (6) Balzarini v. Ulit, No. 15-16530 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2016) (appeal found to be 3 frivolous and dismissed for failure to pay filing fee). 4 The Ninth Circuit has determined that the first three suits are strikes. Balzarini v. 5 Ulit, No. 15-16530 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2016), Dkt. No. 11. The appellate court informed 6 plaintiff of the strikes and ordered him to pay the full filing fee.

When he did not do 7 so, the appeal was dismissed. Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was 8 rejected. Dkt. No. 16. 9 DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff has filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. No. 16.) He 11 contends the suits he filed outside the district in which the present suit is being heard 12 cannot be counted under § 1915(g). (Id. at 2.) His contention is unsupported, and there is 13 no such restriction in the statute. Under § 1915(g), any federal suit or appeal that was 14 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or because it failed to state a claim upon which relief 15 may be granted can count as a strike. 16 Plaintiff also contends in a conclusory fashion that none of the suits qualifies under 17 § 1915(g), and, more specifically, that suits dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or for failure 18 to prosecute cannot counts as strikes, and he cites Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia 19 Department of Corrections,

(11th Cir. 2016) in support. (Response to OSC, 20 Dkt. No. 16 at 2-3.) This is unavailing. First, Daker is an Eleventh Circuit case and 21 therefore is not binding on this Court. Second, even if Daker were binding here, plaintiff 22 does not state to which (if any) of his prior suits Daker applies, and the Court can find 23 none. The suits were dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or because they 24

25 1 When the Ninth Circuit relies on the district court’s certification that appeals are not taken in good faith, the dismissed appeals “clearly count as strikes” because “lack of ‘good 26 faith’ in this context has been held to be equivalent to a finding of frivolity.” Knapp v. Hogan,

(9th Cir. 2013) (citing Gardner v. Pogue,

, 551 27 (9th Cir. 1977)). 1 failed to state a claim for relief. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has declared that the first 2 three suits listed above are strikes. 3 Plaintiff has not shown he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at 4 the time his complaint was filed. See Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 5 2007) (the plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that 6 “imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint.) He lists general 7 complaints about the conditions affecting all prisoners (e.g., poor ventilation, bad food, 8 inadequate clothing and medical care, restrictions on family and conjugal visits and 9 marriages) but he does not specify how or show that any of these conditions, with one 10 exception, affects him personally and directly. (Response to OSC, Dkt. No. 16 at 3-10.) 11 He alleges that bad ventilation and extremes of heat and cold “affect him more than others, 12 and may cause esophageal varices or throwing up blood,” yet these allegations do not 13 establish he was under threat of serious physical injury at the time of filing. (Id. at 8.) In 14 fact, the only such incident he discusses in detail happened in 2018. (Id.) He alleges this 15 temperature sensitivity arises from his having Hepatitis-C, which he states doctors at his 16 prison are refusing to treat with appropriate medications. (Id. at 7.) He does not say with 17 any specificity how this lack of medication placed him under imminent danger of serious 18 physical injury at the time of filing. 19 Plaintiff therefore has not shown any reason that the restrictions of § 1915(g) should 20 not be imposed. He has failed to (i) pay the filing fee; (ii) show that any of the strikes do 21 not qualify under § 1915(g); (iii) show that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception; 22 or (iv) otherwise show cause why this action should not be dismissed. This action will be 23 dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff raising his claims in a new paid complaint. 24 CONCLUSION 25 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff raising 26 his claims in a new paid complaint. Plaintiff’s IFP status is REVOKED. His motion for 27 the appointment of counsel; his motion in opposition to the Order to Show Cause; and his 1 motion for release are DENIED. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 11, and 16.) The Clerk shall terminate all 2 pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: July _1_2_, 2021 _________________________ 5 RICHARD SEEBORG 6 Chief United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27