Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Juan CALDERON, Case No.: 26-cv-1313-AGS-MMP 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 6 vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 3) AND DISMISSING THE 7 STATE GOVERNMENTAL PRISON COMPLAINT EMPLOYEES, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Inmate Juan Calderon moves to proceed without prepaying the court’s filing fees. 11 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must prepay 12 $405 in fees, including a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). But if granted the right to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), a 15 plaintiff can proceed without prepaying those fees. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 16 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). 17 Regardless of whether Calderon meets the usual IFP requirements, though, he “faces 18 an additional hurdle” “nicknamed the ‘three-strikes rule.’” See Moore v. Maricopa Cty. 19 Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This rule 20 prohibits a “prisoner” from gaining IFP status “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 21 occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a 22 court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, 23 or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id. Once someone has three 24 strikes, the Court may only grant IFP status if “the prisoner is under imminent danger of 25 serious physical injury.” Id. 26 Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating a 27 prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP for having three strikes, but “in some instances, the 28 district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one 1 || of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 2 |{ 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). So it is here. Courts in this district have previously found that 3 || Calderon, “while incarcerated, has had at least three prior civil actions dismissed on the 4 grounds they failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Calderon v. 5 || Mencias, No. 25cv3394-BTM (SBC), 2026 WL 473255, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026) 6 || (listing three prior strikes); see also United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 7 || 1980) (holding that “a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as 8 || well as the records of [different courts] in other cases”); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) 9 || (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it 10 be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably 11 questioned.”). The Court thus finds that Calderon has at least three strikes against him. 12 As to the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception, that requires 13 |/alleging a harm is “ready to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one’s head.” 14 || Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). Calderon’s 15 ||allegations do not rise to that level. He asserts, for example, that defendants have 16 ““implanted” a “chip” and “memory processor” in him and in his family that has “altering 17 manipulating neurotransmitters.” (See ECF 1, at 2.) These “implausible” allegations do 18 |/not sufficiently allege an “imminent danger.” See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1057 n.11. 19 Calderon’s IFP request is thus DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without 20 || prejudice for failure to prepay the filing fees. The Clerk must close this case. The Court 21 || also “certifies in writing” that an in forma pauperis appeal of this Order would be frivolous 22 “not taken in good faith.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 23 Dated: September 2, 2026 24 4 —— 25 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 27 28 2 a oe