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)

Download PDF
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

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?