Pierce v. The US Government and Its Officers as Federal Judges et al

Filing 3

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDER DISMISSING Action Without Prejudice to Refiling With Submission of $400.00 Filing Fee, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/19/16. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11

SEAVON PIERCE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
THE U.S. GOVERNENT AND ITS
OFFICERS AS FEDERAL JUDGES, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01362-LJO-EPG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. 2)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH SUBMISSION
OF $400.00 FILING FEE

17
18
19

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on
September 14, 2016. That same day, he also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

20

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

21

bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

22

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that

23

was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

24

may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”1

25
26
27
28

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Seavon Pierce v. Lancaster
State Prison, 2:13-CV-08126 (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and as
malicious); Seavon Pierce v. Fernando Gonzales, et al., 1:10-cv-00285-JLT (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on
December 3, 2012 for failure to state a claim); and Seavon Pierce v. President Barack Obama, et al., 1:15-cv00650-DAD-DLB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed December 1, 2015, for failure to state a claim); Seavon Pierce v. The

1

1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and his allegations do not satisfy the imminent

2

danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007).

3

Plaintiff makes no allegations concerning any imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore,

4

Plaintiff has not satisfied the exception from the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and must

5

pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate this claim.

6

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED; and,

8

2.

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00

9

filing fee.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 19, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

US Government and Its Officers as Federal Judges, 1:16-cv-1361-LJO-BAM (dismissed on September 19,
2016, as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1916(g)’s three strikes provision).

2