(PC) Staten v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2014cv00718 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Denying 3 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/29/14. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DWIGHT A. STATEN, Case No. 1:14-cv-00718-LJO-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS 11 12 v. 13 GIPSON, et al., 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 3) 15 FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Dwight A. Staten is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil 19 rights action filed May 12, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff 20 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a 22 civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while 23 incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 24 States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 25 claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of 26 serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 27 28 Court records reveal that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis and is required to submit the filing fee in full in order to proceed 1 1 with this action. The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases that qualify as strikes 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g):1 Staten v. Walker, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00517-JAM- 3 GCH (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed February 17, 2009 for failure to state a claim; affirmed on 4 appeal November 3, 2010); Staten v. Terhune, et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-06196-AWI-SMS 5 (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed October 24, 2001for failure to state a claim; affirmed on appeal July 6 10, 2003); Staten v. Reagan, C-92-4348 EFL, (N.D. Cal.), 1993 WL 266646 (dismissed July 7 14, 1993 for failure to state a claim; no appeal taken).2 8 To meet the imminent danger exception, the threat or prison condition must be real 9 and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003), and the danger of 10 serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is filed. See Malik v. McGinnis, 11 293 F.3d 559, 562-63 (2d Cir. 2002); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th 12 Cir. 2007). 13 Plaintiff alleges that in September 2013, Defendant Corcoran State Prison 14 employees improperly denied him psychiatric medication, but then restored it in December 15 2013. He also alleges that prison employees improperly restrained him for seven hours 16 during a lockdown in January 2014. The allegations do not demonstrate that Plaintiff was 17 deprived of medication or subject to ongoing threat of improper restraint at the time this 18 action was commenced on May 12, 2014. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Andrews, 493 F.3d at 19 1052; see also Almond v. Pollard, 443 F.App’x 198, 201-02 (7th Cir. 2011). Moreover, 20 Plaintiff does not allege any potential serious physical injury. See Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 21 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002) (threat must be real and proximate and the potential 22 consequence must be “serious physical injury”). 23 The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application should be 24 denied because he accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent danger of 25 serious physical harm at the time this action was initiated, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff 26 should be provided with the opportunity to pay the filing fee in full. 27 1 28 United States ex. Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (a court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”). 2 Qualifying dismissals entered prior to the 1996 enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act count as strikes. See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1997). 2 1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 3) should be DENIED, 3 2. Plaintiff should be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, and 4 3. 5 If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of 6 adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, all pending motions 7 should be terminated and this action dismissed without prejudice. 8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 10 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the 11 parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A party may respond 13 to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being 14 served with a copy of that party’s objections. 15 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 16 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 17 1991). 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 29, 2014 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.