(PC) Bealer v. Kern Valley State Prison
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 11 be Denied; 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 re 11 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS filed by Antwoine Bealer ; referred to Judge Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/11/2018. Objections to F&R due (30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
ANTWOINE BEALER,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:18-cv-01170-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
(ECF No. 11)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
20
Plaintiff Antwoine Bealer is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
21
1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
22
and Local Rule 302.
23
Plaintiff initiated the instant action on May 14, 2018, and the complaint was entered on August
24
29, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file any application to proceed in forma
25
paueris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Therefore, on August 30, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
26
either submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within forty-five days.
27
(ECF No. 3.) The Court did not receive a response from Plaintiff regarding that order before the deadline
28
expired.
1
1
On November 13, 2018, the Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss for Plaintiff’s
2
failure to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400.00 filing fee in this action.
3
(ECF No. 8.) On November 26, 2018, the Court received a notice from Plaintiff, stating that he had
4
submitted his application to the Trust Office for certification and thought that it had been sent to the
5
Court after processing, and had first discovered from the findings and recommendations that there was
6
an issue. (Doc. No. 9.) For good cause shown, the Court vacated its findings and recommendations,
7
and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the prior order. (Doc. No. 10.)
8
9
On December 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, on extension.
(ECF No. 1.) That application is currently before the Court.
10
II.
11
LEGAL STANDARD
12
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted “to curb frivolous prisoner
13
complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2011). Pursuant to
14
the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statue was amended to include section 1915(g), a non-merits related
15
screening device which precludes prisoners with three or more “strikes” from proceeding in forma
16
pauperis unless they are under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
17
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). The statute provides that “[i]n no event
18
shall a prisoner bring a civil action … under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
19
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
20
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
21
relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28
22
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
23
III.
24
DISCUSSION
25
The Court finds that Plaintiff has incurred three or more strikes under section 1915(g) prior to
26
filing this lawsuit. The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases: (1) Antwoine Bealer v.
27
Wilson., No. 1:16-cv-00672-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2016) (dismissed for failure to state a
28
claim); (2) Antwoine Bealer v. Kern Valley State Prison., No. 1:16-cv-00367-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.
2
1
March 17, 2016) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); (3) Antwoine Bealer v. Kern Valley State
2
Prison, No. 1:17-cv-01277-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. March 7, 2017) (dismissed for failure to state a claim).1
3
The issue now becomes whether Plaintiff has met the imminent danger exception, which requires
4
Plaintiff to show that he is under (1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and which turns on
5
the conditions he faced at the time he filed his complaint. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-1056. Conditions
6
which posed imminent danger to Plaintiff at some earlier time are immaterial, as are any subsequent
7
conditions. Id. at 1053. While the inquiry is merely procedural rather than a merits-based review of the
8
claims, the allegations of imminent danger must still be plausible. Id. at 1055.
9
Here, Plaintiff alleges that in March 2014, he was placed in the Administrative Segregation Unit,
10
and subsequently placed in the Security Housing Unit, without sufficient cause and to interfere with his
11
programming. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint allegations do not meet the imminent danger
12
exception. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053. Plaintiff has not shown that he is at risk of any serious physical
13
injury. Rather, he seeks damages related to an argument that there was an error in his classification
14
status, and for a lower placement score. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis
15
in this action, and he should be required to pre-pay the $400 filing fee to proceed in this case.
16
IV.
17
CONCLUSION
18
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
19
1.
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) be denied; and
20
2.
Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of service of the
21
Court’s order adopting these findings and recommendations.
22
///
23
24
Plaintiff’s appeal of the dismissal in the third suit (Antwoine Bealer v. Kern Valley State Prison, No.
1:17-cv-01277-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal)) is pending before the Ninth Circuit. However, the Supreme Court
has held that “a prisoner who has accumulated three prior qualifying dismissals under § 1915(g) may
not file an additional suit in forma pauperis while his appeal of one such dismissal is pending.” Coleman
v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1765, 191 L. Ed. 2d 803 (2015). See also Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d
1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015) (“dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the
dismissal is the subject of an appeal”) (quoting Coleman, 135 S. Ct. at 1763). Therefore, the Court may
rely on the dismissal in Plaintiff’s third suit even though an appeal is pending in that matter.
1
25
26
27
28
3
1
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days
3
after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with
4
the Court.
5
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
6
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
7
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 11, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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?