Edwin O. Garcia v. Landevazzo, 2:20-cv-01754

Plaintiff (Garcia) moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the court reviewed its docket for prior dismissals.
The court identified at least three prior civil actions by Garcia dismissed as frivolous, malicious, time-barred, or for failure to state a claim.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), three such dismissals count as "strikes" and bar prisoner IFP status absent payment of filing fees or showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court noted that when the docket itself shows prior qualifying dismissals, the initial burden shifts to the prisoner to rebut that those dismissals count as strikes.
The court ordered Garcia to show cause within 28 days why the IFP motion should not be denied and the action dismissed, by explaining why prior dismissals should not count or by demonstrating the imminent-danger exception.
The court stated it may take judicial notice of its own records to establish prior dismissals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garcia has three qualifying strikes under §1915(g)	Prior dismissals should not count (Garcia)	Court docket shows multiple dismissals qualifying as strikes	Court found at least three prior dismissals that appear to qualify as strikes
Who bears the burden to prove strikes when court docket shows dismissals	Garcia may argue he need not rebut until defendants produce evidence	Docket evidence is sufficient to shift burden to Garcia to rebut	Court held burden shifts to the prisoner to explain why dismissals should not count
Whether Garcia qualifies for the imminent-danger exception to §1915(g)	Garcia must allege plausible imminent danger at time of filing	Defendants contend no such plausible allegation exists	Court ordered Garcia to show cause and either rebut strikes or demonstrate imminent danger
Whether the court may take judicial notice of its own records to establish prior dismissals	Garcia may contest judicial-notice reliance	Court relies on its records to identify prior dismissals	Court may and did take judicial notice of its docket records for this purpose

Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2017) (failure-to-state dismissal with leave to amend followed by no amendment counts as a strike under §1915(g))
Andrews v. Cervantes, 593 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (prisoner qualifies for §1915(g) imminent-danger exception only with plausible allegation of imminent serious physical injury)
United States v. Author Servs., 804 F.2d 1520 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may take judicial notice of its own records)