govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-03241-0

1 
26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC 
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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
JEROME L. GRIMES, 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
ARMADA TRANSPORT, INC., 
Defendant. 

 
ORDER: 
 
(1) DENYING MOTION TO 
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS 
BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 
(Doc. No. 2); AND 
 
(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 
FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 
REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 
 
INTRODUCTION 
Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at the Larry 
D. Smith Correctional Facility in Riverside County, has filed this civil rights action against 
Defendant Armada Transport, Inc. (See Doc. No. 1.) Because Plai ntiff failed to pay the 
filing fee and is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the case is DISMISSED 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
Case 3:26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC Document 3 Filed 06/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4
 
2 
26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC 
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
DISCUSSION 
 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 
filing fees of $405.
1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). “An action may proceed despite failure to 
pay the filing fees only if the party is granted IFP status.” Rodriguez v. Cook , 169 F.3d 
1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Prisoners, ho wever, “face an additional hurdle.” Moore v. 
Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office , 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). To further “the 
congressional goal of reducing frivolous prison er litigation in fede ral court,” prisoners 
cannot proceed IFP once they “have, while incarcerated, on 3 or more prior occasions had 
claims dismissed due to their frivolity, ma liciousness, or failure to state a claim.” Tierney 
v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311–12 (9th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up); see also 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915(g) (“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action under this section if the prisoner 
has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought 
an action or appeal . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or 
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 
imminent danger of serious physical injury.”). 
 When courts review a dismissal to determ ine whether it counts as one of these three 
strikes, “the style of the dismissal or the pr ocedural posture is immaterial” because “the 
central question is whether the dismissal rang the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act] 
bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.” El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 
1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). Prior cas es are considered strikes, then, “even if 
the district court styles such dismissal as denial of the prisoner’s application to file the 
action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price , 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 
(9th Cir. 2008). Defendants typically ca rry the initial burden to produce evidence 
 
1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 
administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 
District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The $55 administrative fee 
does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed without prepayment. Id. 
Case 3:26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC Document 3 Filed 06/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4
 
3 
26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC 
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
demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to pr oceed IFP for having three strikes, but “in 
some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal 
satisfies at least one of the criteria under § 1915(g) and therefore counts as a strike.” 
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). 
 While incarcerated, Plaintiff has had num erous prior civil actions dismissed on the 
grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief 
may be granted. See United States v. Wilson , 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding 
that “a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records 
of [different courts] in other cases.”). Indeed, a recent orde r in another matter found that 
“Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, wh ile incarcerated, has had far more than three prior civil 
actions dismissed on the grounds that they we re frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a 
claim upon which relief may be granted.” Grimes v. Arguetta, No. 25-cv-1979-BAS-MSB, 
2025 WL 2495242, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025). That order took judicial notice that 
Plaintiff has filed “over 600 ci vil actions in multiple federa l district courts across the 
country dating back to 1986[;]” identified at least five specific strikes entered in the Eastern 
District of California, Middle District of Flor ida, and District of Maryland; and it noted 
prior § 1915(g) bars in this Court, the Northern District of California, Western District of 
Louisiana, Eastern District of Kentucky, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida, and the 
District of Maryland dating as far back as 2007. Id. at *2–3. 
 Nor can Plaintiff meet the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception 
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Imminent danger requi res an allegation that a harm is “ready 
to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one’s head.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 
1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). It “ca nnot be triggered solely by complaints of 
past injury or generalized fears of possible future harm.” Hernandez v. Williams , No. 
21-cv-347-MMA-KSC, 2021 WL 1317376, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021) (cleaned up). 
Plaintiff claims Defendant Armada Transport, Inc., a towing/impo und yard operator, 
committed various torts against him by tampering with Plaintiff’s 2007 Ford Focus while 
it was at Defendant’s tow yard in October 2024. (See Doc. No. 1 at 3–5.) Plaintiff does not 
Case 3:26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC Document 3 Filed 06/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4
 
4 
26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC 
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
attempt to allege he is in any imminent danger. Therefore, nothing in his complaint satisfies 
the imminent danger exception. 
CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 
IFP (Doc. No. 2) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); DISMISSES WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE this case based on Plaintiff’s failu re to pay the full $405 statutory and 
administrative filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal 
from this Order would be frivolous and “not taken in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915(a)(3); and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 3, 2026 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-03241-AJB-SBC Document 3 Filed 06/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight