Thomas v. Nguyen et al

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 4 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and Plaintiff be Ordered to Pay the $400.00 Filing Fee in Full re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/19/2014. This case has been assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The new case number is 1:14-cv-01586-LJO-JLT (PC). Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

1:14-cv-1586 JLT (PC)

KEITH PREZELL THOMAS,

12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

NGUYEN,et al.

15

(Doc. 4)
30-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, Keith Prezell Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on October 9,

19

2014. On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis rather

20

than pay the filing fee, which is now pending before the Court.

21

"In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has,

22

on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or

23

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

24

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under

25

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

26

The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d

27

873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the Court takes judicial notice of Thomas v. Stockman, CV F

28

99 655 REC DLB P; Thomas v. Galaza, CV F 00 5346 AWI DLB P; and Thomas v. Galaza, CV
1

1

F 00 5348 OWW LJO P. All three of these actions were dismissed as frivolous, or for failure to

2

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to proceed in

3

forma pauperis unless he alleges facts indicating that he is in imminent danger of serious physical

4

injury. There are no such facts alleged in this case.

5

Plaintiff's claim in this action is for deliberate indifference to his serious medical

6

condition for failure to provide medicinal marijuana and physical therapy for his osteoarthritis.

7

Plaintiff’s allegations do not establish that he was facing imminent danger of serious physical

8

injury at the time the Complaint was filed. Plaintiff’s allegations, even if true, do not demonstrate

9

that Plaintiff was, at any time, facing imminent danger of serious physical injury. Andrews, 493

10

F.3d at 1055-56. While not receiving one's preferred medication and form of treatment for a

11

condition may be less than desirable, it certainly does not rise to the level of imminent danger, nor

12

does it even state a cognizable claim. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). Plaintiff's

13

allegations do not establish that he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury at the

14

time the Complaint was filed.

15
16

Thus, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be
denied and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee for this action in full.

17

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

18

1.

19

Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

20

2.

Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full.

21

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

22

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30

23

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

24

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

25

Findings and Recommendations."

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 19, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3