{"id":419,"date":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=419"},"modified":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","slug":"grimes-oceanside-plra-three-strikes-1915g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=419","title":{"rendered":"Grimes v. Municipality of Oceanside \u2014 S.D. Cal. Bars Serial Pro Se Filer Under PLRA’s Three-Strikes Provision"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Grimes v. Municipality of Oceanside City<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-16<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-03773<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Prison Litigation Reform Act, three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1915(g), in forma pauperis, imminent danger exception<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Jerome L. Grimes is a detainee at the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in Riverside County. He filed a federal civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 in the Southern District of California, alleging negligent towing of his vehicle by the City of Oceanside. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) so he would not have to pay the $405 federal-court filing fee.<\/p>\n

Federal civil filings normally require a $405 filing fee. The IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1915, allows litigants who cannot afford the fee to proceed without payment. But Congress, through the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), placed a special restriction on prisoners: if a prisoner has had three or more prior cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, he loses the privilege to proceed IFP unless he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the IFP motion under the three-strikes rule and dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing fee. The court took judicial notice of federal docket records showing that Grimes has filed over 600 civil actions in federal courts nationwide dating back to 1986, with many dozens dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. The court walked through several specific qualifying “strikes” \u2014 the cases the PLRA targets for counting purposes \u2014 including dismissals from the Eastern District of California, the Middle District of Florida, and the District of Maryland. It also cited prior IFP denials under \u00a7 1915(g) by other federal districts, including a 2007 Northern District of California ruling that already informed Grimes of his three-strikes status, an Eastern District of California docket noting approximately 36 dismissals in 2003 alone, a Western District of Louisiana finding that Grimes had filed more than 350 cases, and Eastern District of Kentucky and District of Maryland decisions in 2015 and 2017 noting hundreds of prior filings.<\/p>\n

The court applied two key Ninth Circuit principles. First, the central question for whether a prior dismissal counts as a strike is not the procedural label but whether the dismissal “rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim,” citing El-Shaddai v. Zamora<\/em>. Second, when a court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, grants leave to amend, and the plaintiff fails to amend, the resulting dismissal counts as a strike under Harris v. Mangum<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Grimes’s complaint about negligent towing alleged no facts suggesting imminent physical danger, so the imminent-danger exception in \u00a7 1915(g) did not apply. The court also certified that any IFP appeal would be frivolous and not in good faith.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n