(PC) McCoy v. United States et al, No. 1:2022cv00789 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 , be DENIED, pursuant to 28:1915(g) and Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $402.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this action ; new case number is 1:22-cv-00789 DAD-BAM (PC); referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/28/2022. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD L. MCCOY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:22-cv-00789-BAM (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED (ECF No. 2) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 19 20 Plaintiff Reginald L. McCoy, also known as Reggie L. McCoy, (“Plaintiff”) is a federal 21 prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal 22 Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Plaintiff initiated this action on June 27, 2022, together 23 with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff also filed a “Request to 24 Excuse Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedy,” (ECF No. 3), which will be addressed by 25 separate order following resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 26 Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a 27 prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 28 occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of 1 1 the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 2 a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious 3 physical injury.”1 Plaintiff has previously been notified that he is subject to § 1915(g).2 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that his allegations do not satisfy 4 5 the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g).3 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 6 1053−55 (9th Cir. 2007). In the complaint, Plaintiff states since December 21, 2020, at USP 7 Atwater, where Plaintiff is currently housed, COVID-19 outbreaks have spread throughout the 8 general inmate population. Plaintiff states that he is unable to practice social distancing from 9 COVID-19 positive inmates and staff, and defendants that tested positive at the prison transmitted 10 the virus to non-infected inmates and staff, spreading the COVID-19 pandemic into the USP 11 Atwater prison population. This exposed Plaintiff to the risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus, 12 or death. Plaintiff states that he has suffered headaches “due to inhaling toxic fumes from 13 ventilation,” coughing, sneezing, pain in muscles and throat, and difficulty breathing. (ECF No. 14 1, p. 3.) Plaintiff alleges, in a conclusory fashion and without identifying the actions or inactions 15 of any individual defendant, that defendants were deliberately indifferent and failed to protect 16 Plaintiff’s health and safety, and Plaintiff now suffers “significant serious imminent irreparable 17 harm present/future due to immediate danger of COVID-19.” (Id.) “Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely 18 19 speculative or hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, 2016 WL 5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 20 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: (1) McCoy v. United States of America, Case No. 2:00-cv-01469-UA (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on February 25, 2000 as frivolous); (2) McCoy v. Adler, Case No. 4:03-cv-00539 (S.D. Tex.) (dismissed on February 28, 2003 for failure to state a claim); (3) McCoy v. Casterline, Case No. 4:03-cv-04439 (S.D. Tex.) (dismissed on October 28, 2003 as malicious); (4) McCoy v. Garcia, Case No. 1:02-cv-02249-FAL-JDK (W.D. La.) (dismissed on November 13, 2003 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); (5) Johnson v. USA, Case No. 1:03-cv-01779-DDD-JDK (W.D. La.) (dismissed on July 6, 2004 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); (6) McCoy v. Castro, Case No. 8:08-cv-01978-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla.) (dismissed on October 23, 2008 for failure to state a claim); (7) McCoy v. Genzman, Case No. 8:13-cv00130-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.) (dismissed on January 18, 2013 for failure to state a claim). The Court also takes judicial notice of the following United States Court of Appeals case: McCoy v. Casterline, Case No. 03-21136 (5th Cir.) (dismissed on June 23, 2004 as frivolous). 2 27 See, e.g., McCoy v. Fed. Bureau of Investigations, Case No. 1:10-cv-01973-RLW (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2011) (granting motion to vacate order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and recognizing that plaintiff “has accumulated at least seven strikes”) 28 3 The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. 2 1 2016). To meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide “specific fact allegations of 2 ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent 3 serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague and 4 utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger or insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 5 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998). 6 The allegations in the complaint are vague and conclusory, and fail to link any of the 7 named defendants to any particular alleged violation of Plaintiff’s rights. Moreover, the 8 allegations do not include any date for the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights, stating only that 9 COVID-19 outbreaks have spread throughout the inmate population at USP Atwater since 10 December 21, 2020, more than a year and six months prior to the filing of the complaint. Thus, 11 none of the allegations appear to present an imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time 12 the complaint was filed. Finally, Plaintiff has not identified that he is at any particular risk of 13 becoming infected by COVID-19 due to the actions or inactions of any defendant, nor has he 14 alleged that he would face any particular risk from a COVID-19 infection than any other inmate. 15 To the extent Plaintiff argues that he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury 16 related to the allegations set forth in his motion requesting an excuse for failure to exhaust 17 administrative remedies, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that these allegations are related to the 18 claims raised in the complaint. “[I]n order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger 19 exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is 20 both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” 21 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). In the motion, Plaintiff alleges that he is in 22 imminent threat of physical danger and harm because he is on a 1-hour watch program that 23 requires him to report with staff every hour, and because he has been placed in a cell with inmate 24 drug users who make sexual remarks and advances on cellmates. (ECF No. 3, pp. 3–4.) These 25 allegations are wholly unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims regarding COVID-19 outbreaks at the 26 institution. 27 28 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege that he was in any imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiff has not satisfied the exception from 3 1 the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff must pay the $402.00 filing fee if he 2 wishes to litigate this action. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and 2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $402.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this action. 10 *** 11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 13 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 14 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file 16 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 17 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 18 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara June 28, 2022 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
