1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1Since plaintiff filed his first federal prisoner action in 1995, he has filed
more than 190 prisoner actions in the federal district courts of California and
many appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
according to this Court’s review of the PACER U.S. Party/Case Index.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RODERICK WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 07-0609 TEH (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED UNDER 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (g)
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison
and a frequent litigant in the federal courts, has filed a pro se complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the three-
strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") by this
Court and other district court judges, to his many cases in the federal district
courts of California.1 This suit alleges a similar cause of action that was earlier
dismissed by this Court under Case No. C-04-5313 TEH (PR) under the PLRA
and for failure to state a claim. See, Washington v. United States District Court,
No. C 04-5313 TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2004) (order of dismissal). In that
Case 3:07-cv-00609-TEH Document 3 Filed 02/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Washington v. United States District Court, Northern District of California et al
Doc. 3
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
order, this Court also identified three prior claims before it that had been
dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On Janu