Ronald Stevens Liberatore v. Computer Town Tarantulas- Tran Men.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). It denied the IFP motion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) due to the plaintiff's prior 'strikes' and lack of imminent danger, and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP)“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs IFP motion [Dkt. 2]” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars prisoners with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim from proceeding IFP unless they are in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The order recites that the plaintiff has 'many strikes' and cites a prior case listing three specific dismissals. It further finds the current claim (tarantulas controlling excretion) is 'clearly baseless, irrational and wholly incredible' and does not allege imminent danger. This follows the statutory text and Ninth Circuit precedent (Andrews v. King). |
Dismissal of Civil Action for Failure to Pay Filing Fee“and DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to prepay the $405 civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a prisoner must pay the full filing fee if they are not proceeding IFP. Since the IFP motion was denied, the plaintiff was required to prepay the fee. The court's dismissal without prejudice for non-payment is the standard procedural consequence. |
Certification that IFP Appeal Would Not Be Taken in Good Faith“The Court also CERTIFIES any IFP appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (now codified at § 1915(a)(3) or similar provisions regarding appeals) to certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Given the frivolous nature of the underlying claim and the clear application of the PLRA 'three strikes' rule, this certification is consistent with the law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the applicable statute (PLRA), applies the 'three strikes' rule based on the specific record of prior dismissals, evaluates the 'imminent danger' exception against the specific facts of the complaint (tarantulas controlling excretion), and correctly dismisses for non-payment of fees. The citation to the prior case provides the necessary factual basis for the 'strikes' determination.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD STEVENS LIBERATORE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02866-JO-MSB 11 CDCR #C-39610, 12 MINUTE ORDER: (1) DENYING Plaintiff, REQUEST TO WAIVE COURT 13 vs. FEES AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. 14 §1915(g); and 15 COMPUTER TOWN TARANTULAS- (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 16 TRAN MEN., FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 17 Defendant. FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 18 19 Plaintiff Ronald Stevens Liberatore, a state inmate proceeding without counsel, filed 20 a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed a motion to waive court 21 fees, which the Court will construe as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 22 Dkts. 1–2. 23 A prisoner with three or more “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals dismissed 24 as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, “cannot proceed IFP” absent a 25 plausible allegation of “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 26 Andrews. v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 27 Liberatore’s many strikes disqualify him from proceeding IFP unless he can meet the 28 imminent danger exception. See Liberatore v. Tarantulas Co., No. 23-cv-01505-RS (PR), 1 |}2023 WL 5498058, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2023) (listing three Northern District of 2 || California cases, 18-cv-01556-RS, 18-cv-06579-RS, 18-cv-06579-RS, which were either 3 || dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim for relief). As in prior complaints in 4 ||which Liberatore asserted he was being surveilled or harassed by tarantulas, id., 5 || Liberatore’s claim here that tarantulas “decide when [he] excrete[s] human waste,” Dkt. 1 6 || at 3, is “clearly baseless, irrational and wholly incredible.” Liberatore, 2023 WL 5498058, 7 *2. Without more, Liberatore’s fantastical claim regarding tarantulas and their control 8 his digestive system is insufficient to allege imminent danger of future serious injury. 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs IFP motion [Dkt. 2] and DISMISSES 10 |/this civil action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to prepay the $405 civil and 11 |}administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court also CERTIFIES 12 any IFP appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 1915(a)(3). The Clerk of the Court is directed to-etese the file. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 15 || Dated: August 31, 2026 16 le Ohta 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2