Pierce v. FBI et al
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/11/2017 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 2 application to proceed ifp be denied; and this action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the filing fees. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 20 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SEAVON PIERCE,
12
No. 2:16-cv-0202-JAM-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
FBI, et al.,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
16
17
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
19
forma pauperis (Doc. 2).
20
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) “three strikes” provision provides:
21
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under
this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action . . . in a
court of the United States that was dismissed on the ground 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.
22
23
24
25
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Thus, when a prisoner plaintiff has had three or more prior actions
26
dismissed for one of the reasons set forth in the statute, such “strikes” preclude the prisoner from
1
1
proceeding in forma pauperis unless the imminent danger exception applies. Dismissed habeas
2
petitions do not count as “strikes” under § 1915(g). See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122
3
(9th Cir. 2005). Where, however, a dismissed habeas action was merely a disguised civil rights
4
action, the district court may conclude that it counts as a “strike.” See id. at n.12. Once it is
5
determined that the prisoner plaintiff has three or more actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
6
or for failure to state a claim, the prisoner is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in
7
another action unless plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have alleged facts that demonstrate that he
9
was “under imminent danger” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493
10
F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2007). “[T]he exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible
11
allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of
12
filing.” Id. at 1055.
13
The court has determined that plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma
14
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1985(g). See Pierce v. Sacramento New and Review, et.al.,
15
Case No. 2:15-cv-2691 JAM KJN P, Pierce v. U.C. Berkeley School of Law, et al, Case No.
16
2:15-cv-2694 JAM KJN P. The undersigned agrees with the findings in plaintiff’s other cases.
17
In addition, it does not appear that plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious
18
physical injury when he filed the instant complaint. In his complaint, Plaintiff claims that he is
19
being denied access to public records. There are no allegations in his complaint that he is or was
20
in any imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. Thus, the
21
undersigned finds the imminent danger exception does not apply.
22
As plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and is not eligible to proceed in forma
23
pauperis, this action shall be dismissed, without prejudice to re-filing upon prepayment of the
24
filing fees. See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310 (9th Cir. 1998).
25
///
26
///
2
1
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:
2
1.
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be
4
2.
This action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment
5
of the filing fees.
3
denied; and
6
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
7
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days
8
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
9
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
10
Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive
11
the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
13
14
15
DATED: April 11, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?