(PC) Williams v. Romero et al, No. 2:2017cv01884 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/26/2018 RECOMMENDING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP be denied and Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee to proceed in this action. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, 12 No. 2:17-cv-1884 GEB DB P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ROMERO, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth 19 below, this court finds plaintiff fails to meet the standards to proceed in forma pauperis and 20 recommends his motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and plaintiff be required to pay 21 the filing fee if he wishes to proceed with this action. 22 23 IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) permits a federal court to authorize 24 the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who 25 submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 26 [i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding 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 in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 1 27 28 1 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 2 3 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This “three strikes rule” was part of “a variety of reforms designed to filter out the bad 5 claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the good.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 6 S. Ct. 1759, 1762 (2015) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). If a prisoner has 7 “three strikes” under § 1915(g), the prisoner is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless 8 he meets the exception for imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 9 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). To meet this exception, the complaint of a “three-strikes” 10 prisoner must plausibly allege that the prisoner was faced with imminent danger of serious 11 physical injury at the time his complaint was filed. See Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 12 (9th Cir. 2015); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055. HAS PLAINTIFF ACCRUED THREE STRIKES? 13 14 Plaintiff has previously been found to have accrued three strikes. In Williams v. Just, No. 15 2:15-cv-2143 WBS CKD P, 2016 WL 740531 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016), rep. and reco. adopted, 16 No. 15-cv-2143 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2016), the court held that plaintiff suffered three strikes, did 17 not meet the imminent danger exception, and must pay the filing fee to proceed. On appeal, the 18 Ninth Circuit held the district court had properly revoked plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status 19 “because at the time Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as 20 ‘strikes,’ and he did not plausibly allege that he was ‘under imminent danger of serious physical 21 injury’ at the time he lodged the complaint. Williams v. Just, 696 F. App’x 261, 261-62 (9th Cir. 22 2017). Accordingly, this court should also find plaintiff has accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(g). 24 IS PLAINTIFF IN IMMINENT DANGER OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY? 25 Because plaintiff has accrued three strikes, this court finds that plaintiff should be 26 precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless he is “under imminent danger 27 of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The availability of the imminent danger 28 exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some 2 1 earlier or later time. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1053. “[A]ssertions of imminent 2 danger of less obviously injurious practices may be rejected as overly speculative or fanciful.” Id. 3 at 1057 n.11. Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not 4 merely speculative or hypothetical. To meet his burden under § 1915(g), an inmate must provide 5 “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct 6 evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 7 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “Vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of harm are insufficient. 8 White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). That is, the “imminent danger” 9 exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat . . . is 10 11 real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint filed September 11, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) 12 Plaintiff alleges that in March 2015 defendants used excessive force when they refused to open a 13 mechanical door which had closed on him and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs 14 when they denied him medical care. As relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive 15 damages. (Id. at 3-6.) 16 Plaintiff does not make any allegation that there was a real and proximate threat to his 17 physical safety at the time he filed his complaint. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053 (citing Lewis v. 18 Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002); Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 19 2001)). Therefore, plaintiff fails to meet the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g). Plaintiff 20 should only be permitted to proceed with this action if he pays the filing fee. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and 23 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee to proceed in this action. 24 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 28 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 1 time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 2 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: January 26, 2018 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DLB:9 DB/prisoner-civil rights/will1884.3 strikes fr 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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.
