Pellum v. Flemings Restaurant

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing Action, Without Prejudice, Pursuant to 28 USC 1915(G), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/24/15. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

JASON PELLUM, SR.,

13

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
1915(G)

v.

14
15

Case No. 1:15-cv-410 LJO-BAM

FLEMINGS RESTAURANT,

16

(Doc. 2)

Defendant.

17

/

18
19

Plaintiff, Jason Everett Pellum (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se in this action filed a

20

complaint, as well as a request to proceed in forma pauperis on February 25, 2015.1 (Docs. 1, and 2).

21
22
23
24

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil
action . . . 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

25

on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

26

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Plaintiff has at least three

27
28

1

This case was initially filed on February 25, 2014 in the Sacramento Division of this district and was transferred to this
Court on March 16, 2015. (Docs. 1 and 3).

1

1

dismissals which qualify as final strikes under section 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090,

2

1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

cases: Pellum v. Fresno Police Dept., 1:10-cv-1258-OWW-SKO (E.D.Cal.) (dismissed for failure to
state a claim on Mar. 7, 2011); Pellum v. The White House, 2:13-cv-0651-AC (E.D.Cal.) (dismissed
as frivolous on April 26, 2013); Pellum v. Skiles, 1:14-cv-1082-MJS (E.D.Cal.) (dismissed for failure
to state a claim on July 22, 2014).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and his allegations do not satisfy the imminent
danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007). If
Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he must first pay the $400.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court
HEREBY ORDERS as follows this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to re-filing accompanied by
the $400.00 filing fee.

SO ORDERED
Dated: March 24, 2015
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2