Pierce v. Prison Law Clinic, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/10/2017 DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff to pay filing of $400 in full within 21 days of this order's entry. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEAVON PIERCE,

12

No. 2:15-cv-2692 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14

PRISON LAW CLINIC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

19

ECF No. 2.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States

20
21

to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a

22

person who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees; however,

23

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.

24
25
26
27
28

////
1

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court takes judicial notice1 of the following lawsuits previously filed

2

by plaintiff:

3

(1) Pierce v. California State, 2:12-cv-9211 UA CW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012), dismissed

4

as frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id.,

5

ECF No. 5.

6

(2) Pierce v. Gonzales, 1:10-cv-0285 JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012), dismissed for failure

7

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id., ECF No. 27.

8

(3) Pierce v. Unknown, 1:15-cv-00650 DAD DLB (E.D. Cal. Dec, 1, 2015), dismissed for

9

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id., ECF No. 38.

10

The court’s review of the above records reveals that on at least three occasions, lawsuits

11

filed by plaintiff have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or malicious or

12

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, this court finds that plaintiff

13

is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless plaintiff is “under imminent

14

danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To meet the exception, plaintiff must

15

have alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical

16

injury” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir.

17

2007) (holding that “it is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters

18

for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception under § 1915(g).”).

19

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that he is under imminent danger of

20

serious physical injury. In his complaint, plaintiff names as defendants the Prison Law Clinic at

21

the University of California-Davis School of Law, the Coalition for Women Prisoners, Amnesty

22

International, Business Wire, the Washington Internet Daily, and the International Herald

23

Tribune. See ECF No. 1 at 1. His allegations against these defendants are difficult to discern.

24

He claims, with no explanation, that: (1) he is a protected class member; (2) that an unspecified

25

appeals process has been ‘falsified’; and (3) that ‘the Riverside Court’ and Riverside District

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), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126
(1981).
2

1

Attorney have entered into an agreement to conceal unspecified evidence. Id. at 2. None of these

2

allegations, or any other information in the complaint, indicate that he is in imminent danger of

3

physical injury.

4

Because the court finds that plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of “imminent

5

danger” to qualify for an exception to the “three strikes” bar under 1915(g), plaintiff will be

6

denied in forma pauperis status and be required to pay the full filing fee in order to proceed with

7

this action.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied;

10
11
12
13
14

2. Plaintiff is required to pay the filing of $400.00 in full within twenty-one (21) days of
this order’s entry; and
3. Failure to pay the filing fee as directed will result in a recommendation that this action
be dismissed.
DATED: May 10, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3