Hendon v. Davey

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denial of 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Directing Plaintiff to Pay Filing Fee within Thirty Days Following the Order Resolving the Instant Recommendation signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/15/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 6/19/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLOS HENDON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DAVEY,

15

Defendant.

16

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00661-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FOLLOWING THE
ORDER RESOLVING THE INSTANT
RECOMMENDATION
[ECF No. 2]

Plaintiff Carlos Hendon is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.

19

I.

20

INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff Carlos Hendon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil

21
22

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 28

23

U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF Nos. 1 and 2.) However, Plaintiff is subject to section 1915(g) of the statute,

24

and he may only proceed in forma pauperis if he has met the imminent danger exception. 28 U.S.C. §

25

1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051-1052 (9th Cir. 2007).

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

II.

2

LEGAL STANDARD
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted “to curb frivolous prisoner

3
4

complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2011). Pursuant to

5

the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statue was amended to include section 1915(g), a non-merits related

6

screening device which precludes prisoners with three or more “strikes” from proceeding in forma

7

pauperis unless they are under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Andrews, 493 F.3d at

8

1050. The statute provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action … under this section

9

if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought

10

an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is

11

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

12

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

13

III.

14

DISCUSSION

15

Plaintiff has suffered three or more strikes under section 1915(g). The Court takes judicial

16

notice of the following cases:1 Hendon v. Witcher, et.al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01246-AWI-DLB (PC(

17

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007) (civil rights action dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

18

may be granted); (2) Hendon v. Rogel, et.al., Case No. 2:05-cv-01063-DFL-PAN (JFM) (PC) (E.D.

19

Cal. Aug. 28, 2006) (same); (3) Hendon v. White, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01825-GEB-CMK (PC)

20

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2008) (same).

21

The issue now becomes whether Plaintiff has met the imminent danger exception, which

22

requires Plaintiff to show that he is under (1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and which

23

turns on the conditions he faced at the time he filed suit on May 12, 2017. Andrews, 493 F.3d at

24

1053-1056. Conditions which posed imminent danger to Plaintiff at some earlier time are immaterial,

25

as are any subsequent conditions. Id. at 1053. While the injury is merely procedural rather than a

26
27
28

1

Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978).

2

1

merits-based review of the claims, the allegations of imminent danger must still be plausible. Id. at

2

1055.

3

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Plaintiff does not meet the

4

imminent danger exception. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053. At the time Plaintiff filed the instant

5

complaint, Plaintiff was housed at California State Prison-Sacramento where he is presently housed.

6

Plaintiff contends from May to October of 2015, he was incarcerated at California State Prison,

7

Corcoran. During that time, he was housed in the Security Housing Unit (SHU), and was denied

8

shower shoes, subjected to constant lighting, subjected to constant noise, forced to remain in a cell

9

with nauseas odors, and had limited personal belongings. Plaintiff requests compensatory and

10

punitive damages as relief. The complaint does not demonstrate that Plaintiff is presently in imminent

11

danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in

12

this action.

13

IV.

14

RECOMMENDATIONS

15

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

16

1.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; and

17

2.

Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of service of
the Court’s order adopting these Findings and Recommendations.

18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

2

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

3

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

May 15, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4