Becker v. Arizona, State of et al

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
JDDL
JL
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nina Mae Becker,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Arizona, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04270-PHX-JAT (ESW)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff Nina Mae Becker, who is confined in a Maricopa
County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Because it appears that Plaintiff has at least
“three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to
show cause why the dismissals of her prior lawsuits should not prevent her from proceeding
in forma pauperis in this action.
I. “Three Strikes Provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) if:
the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Case 2:25-cv-04270-JAT--JZB Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
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
JDDL
“[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s IFP status only when, after
careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the
district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious
or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). “In
some instances, the district court docket records 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.” Id. at 1120.
It appears that at least three of Plaintiff’s prior actions or appeals qualify as “strikes”
under § 1915(g):
(1) Becker v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, CV-18-02791-PHX-JAT
(BSB) (dismissed Oct. 29, 2018 for failure to state a claim);
(2) Becker v. Penzone, CV 23-01216-PHX-JAT (ESW) (dismissed
Dec. 20, 2023 for failure to state a claim); and
(3) Becker v. Mayes, CV-25-03333-PHX-JAT (ESW) (dismissed
Nov. 17, 2025 for failure to state a claim).
II. Imminent Danger
A plaintiff who has three or more strikes may not bring a civil action without
complete prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee unless she is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To meet the
“imminent danger” requirement, the “threat or prison condition [must be] real and
proximate,” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Lewis v.
Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002)), and the allegations must be “specific or
credible.” Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001). “[T]he exception
applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent
danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1915(g)). Moreover, although a court considering a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, “should not attempt to evaluate the seriousness of a
Case 2:25-cv-04270-JAT--JZB Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
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
JDDL
plaintiff’s claims[, . . . ] it has never been the rule that courts must blindly accept a
prisoner’s allegations of imminent danger.” Taylor v. Watkins, 623 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir.
2010).
Plaintiff makes allegations regarding her inability to vote and run for political office
while incarcerated. These allegations do not show that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
III. Order to Show Cause
“[O]nce a prisoner has been placed on notice of the potential disqualification under
§ 1915(g) . . . , the prisoner bears the ultimate burden of persuading the court that § 1915(g)
does not preclude IFP status.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1120. This Order serves as notice of
Plaintiff’s potential disqualification under § 1915(g). The Court will permit Plaintiff an
opportunity to show cause in writing why the dismissals of her prior lawsuits and appeal
do not preclude her in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s response to this
Order shall be limited to this issue and must be filed within 30 days of the date this Order
is filed. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit the $405.00 filing and administrative fees
within 30 days of the date this Order is filed.
If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court that
§ 1915(g) does not preclude her in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
will be denied, and the Complaint and this action will be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to § 1915(g). If Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the future, she must
prepay the entire $405.00 filing and administrative fees when she files her action.
IV. Warnings
A. Address Changes
Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this
action.
. . . .
Case 2:25-cv-04270-JAT--JZB Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
JDDL
B. Possible Dismissal
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these
warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure
to comply with any order of the Court).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 30 days of
the date this Order is filed, why the dismissals of her prior actions or appeals do not
preclude her in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s written response shall
be limited to this issue only.
(2) If Plaintiff fails to either pay the $350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative
fee or file a response to this Order to Show Cause within 30 days of the date this Order is
filed, the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without further
notice to Plaintiff and without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a complaint in a new case
accompanied by prepayment of the full $405.00 filing and administrative fees and must
deny any pending unrelated motions as moot.
Dated this 5th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04270-JAT--JZB Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 4