1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANTHONY CEASAR LEWIS, 7 Case No. 25-cv-03707-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 FEDERAL BUREAU OF 10 INVESTIGATION, 11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Lewis, a detainee at the Monterey County Jail proceeding pro se, 13 filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to

against the Federal Bureau of 14 Investigation. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 15 Dkt. 2. For the reasons stated below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why his motion for 16 leave to proceed IFP should not be denied, and this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28

(g). 18 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was enacted, and became effective, on April 26, 19 1996. It provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP under

“if the 20 prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought 21 an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is 22 frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner 23 is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

(g). 24 For purposes of a dismissal that may be counted under section 1915(g), the phrase “fails to 25 state a claim on which relief may be granted” parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation, the word “frivolous” refers to a case that is 27 “of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact,” and the word “malicious” refers to 1 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these three categories can be 2 counted as strikes for section 1915(g) purposes. See

Dismissal of an action under section 3 1915(g) should only occur when, “after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an [earlier] 4 action, and other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed 5 because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.”

6 Andrews requires that the prisoner be given notice of the potential applicability of section 7 1915(g), by either the district court or the defendants, but also requires the prisoner to bear the 8 ultimate burden of persuasion to show that section 1915(g) does not bar pauper status in this case. 9

Andrews implicitly allows the court to raise the section 1915(g) problem sua sponte, but 10 requires the court to notify the prisoner of the earlier dismissals it considers to support a section 11 1915(g) dismissal and allow the prisoner an opportunity to be heard on the matter before 12 dismissing the action. See

. A dismissal under section 1915(g) means that a prisoner 13 cannot proceed with his action as a pauper under section 1915(g), but he still may pursue his 14 claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the action. 15 A review of the dismissal orders in Plaintiff’s prior prisoner actions reveals that he has had 16 at least three such cases dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to 17 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is now given notice that the Court 18 believes the following federal district court dismissals may be counted as dismissals for purposes 19 of section 1915(g): (1) Lewis v. Delarosa, Case No. C 15-2689 NC (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015) 20 (dismissing civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim); (2) Lewis v. Department of Justice, 21 Case No. C 08-1361 WHA (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008) (same); (3) Lewis v. Swieghiet, Case 22 No. C 07-5614 WHA (PR) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2008) (dismissing civil rights complaint based on 23 Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994)); (4) Lewis v. Curtis, Case No. C 08-0712 WHA (PR) 24 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2008) (dismissing civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim because 25 defendant had absolute immunity); and (5) Lewis v. Allen-Hendrix, Case No. C 08-0711 WHA 26 (PR) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2008) (dismissing civil rights complaint based on Heck). The Court has 27 1 evaluated each of these cases based on their dismissal orders. See Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. 2 In light of these dismissals, and because Plaintiff does not appear to be under imminent 3 danger of serious physical injury, see Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007), 4 Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than twenty-eight (28) days from 5 the date of this Order why his motion for leave to proceed IFP should not be denied and this action 6 should not be dismissed pursuant to

(g). If Plaintiff is so inclined, he may avoid 7 dismissal by paying the $405.00 filing fee. In any event, the Court will continue to review under 8 section 1915(g) all future actions filed by Plaintiff while he is incarcerated and in which he seeks 9 IFP status. 10 Failure to file a timely response or failure to pay the full filing fee in will result in the 1] dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. as 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 7, 2025 14

5 YQONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge 16

17

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28