McCoy v. Holguin et al
Filing
56
ORDER Granting 45 Request for Judicial Notice; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status and Direct Plaintiff to Pay Filing Fee in Full re 44 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/6/17. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAKEITH L. MCCOY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
A. HOLGUIN, et al.,
1:15-cv-00768-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO
1. REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS, AND
Defendants.
16
2. DIRECT PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING
FEE IN FULL
17
18
(ECF Nos. 44, 45)
19
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
20
21
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
22
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second
23
Amended Complaint asserting excessive force and failure to protect claims against 19
24
Defendants following a March 2015 assault. On July 14, 2015, Plaintiff was granted
25
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.)
26
Now pending is Defendants’ January 9, 2017, motion to revoke in forma pauperis
27
status. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the
28
1
1
undersigned will recommend that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked and he
2
be directed to pay the filing fee in full.
3
Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a
4
prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
5
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
6
court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
7
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner
8
is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
9
Plaintiff initiated this action on May 20, 2015. Before that date, Plaintiff’s
10
complaints in the following cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim and
11
judgment was entered accordingly: McCoy v. County of Riverside, 2:13-cv-8674-RGK-
12
DFM (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on July 31, 2014, for failure to state a claim); McCoy v.
13
Curiel, 2:14-cv-0517-RGK-DFM (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on January 9, 2015, for failure to
14
state a claim); McCoy v. County of Los Angeles, 2:14-cv-7262 UA-DFM (C.D. Cal.)
15
(dismissed on September 25, 2014, for failure to state a claim); and McCoy v. Cacciola,
16
1:13-cv-0995-SKO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on December 18, 2014, for failure to state a
17
claim). Since Plaintiff does not argue that these cases do not constitute a strike, the
18
undersigned finds that he is a “three-striker” within the meaning of Section 1915(g), and
19
the only question remaining is whether Plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious
20
physical injury at the time he filed this action.
21
The imminent danger exception applies if “the complaint makes a plausible
22
allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time
23
of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit
24
interprets “imminent danger” to mean “ongoing danger,” meaning the prisoner must
25
allege that prison officials have continued with a practice that has injured him or others
26
similarly situated in the past. Id. at 1056-57.
27
28
A prisoner seeking to invoke the imminent danger exception in § 1915(g) must
make specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm. McNeil
2
1
v. U.S., 2006 WL 581081 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 8, 2006) (citing Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d
2
1125, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2001), and White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir.
3
1998)). Vague, speculative, and non-specific allegations are insufficient. See Pauline v.
4
Mishner, 2009 WL 1505672 (D. Haw. May 28, 2009) (plaintiff's vague and conclusory
5
allegations of possible future harm to himself or others are insufficient to trigger the
6
“imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to dismissal under § 1915(g));
7
Cooper v. Bush, 2006 WL 2054090 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2006) (plaintiff's allegations that
8
he will commit suicide, or that he has already attempted suicide and will do so again, are
9
insufficient to show imminent danger); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1077
10
(E.D. Wis. 1999) (“[p]laintiff's vague allegation of a conspiracy among the defendants to
11
beat, assault, injure, harass and retaliate against him are not enough. These allegations
12
are insufficient and lack the specificity necessary to show an imminent threat of serious
13
physical injury.”).
14
Plaintiff sets forth three grounds in opposition to Defendants’ motion: Defendants
15
have not met their burden to show that the IFP status should be revoked, the “imminent
16
danger” exception is applicable to the facts of this case, and revocation of the IFP
17
cannot apply to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not elaborate on these grounds other than to
18
argue that the imminent danger exception applies to him because he continues to suffer
19
from injuries from the assault. He also asserts that denying him this exception on the
20
ground that the assault occurred in the past would be “a cruel joke on prisoners.” See
21
Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
22
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Plaintiff does not meet
23
the imminent danger exception. This action is directed at 19 Defendants who are alleged
24
to have used excessive force and/or failed to intervene during an assault that occurred in
25
March 2015, nearly two and one-half months before he initiated this case. Plaintiff’s
26
pleadings allege neither an ongoing harm nor an imminent threat of serious physical
27
injury. His claim that he continues to suffer from his past injuries is insufficient to satisfy
28
the requirements of this exception.
3
1
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for judicial notice
(ECF No. 45) is GRANTED; and
3
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
4
1. Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 44)
be GRANTED;
5
6
2. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be REVOKED; and
7
3. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $400 filing fee in this action within fourteen days
from the adoption of these findings and recommendations.
8
9
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States
10
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.
11
§ 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and
12
recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document
13
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
14
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the
15
waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
16
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
March 6, 2017
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?