Hendon v. Carrillo

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/28/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed IFP; and plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee no later than 14 days from the date of this order. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of this action.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLOS HENDON,

12

No. 2:17-cv-0170 CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

LISA CARILLO,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

U.S.C. § 1983 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a),

19

1915(a).

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits any court of the United States to authorize the commencement

21

and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit

22

indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,

23
24
25
26
27
28

[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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
1

1

Court records indicate that plaintiff has been deemed a “Three Strikes” inmate under 28

2

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Hendon v. Kulka, No. 2:14-cv-2581 AC P (order identifying plaintiff as

3

three-strikes litigant on August 3, 2015).1 The court takes judicial notice of the three cases

4

identified therein as § 1915(g) strikes, all of which were dismissed for failure to state a claim. All

5

were dismissed well prior to the filing of the instant action and constitute strikes under § 1915(g).

6

The imminent danger applies only if it is clear that the danger existed when the complaint

7

was filed. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Allegations of imminent

8

danger that are overly speculative or fanciful may be rejected. Id. at 1057, n.11. Having

9

reviewed the complaint, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has not credibly alleged “imminent

10

danger of serious physical injury” under § 1915(g).

11
12

In light of the above, plaintiff will be granted fourteen days to pay the filing fee in this
action; otherwise, it will be dismissed.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; and

15

2. Plaintiff shall pay the $400 filing fee no later than fourteen days from the date of this

16

order. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

17

Dated: February 28, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23

2 / hend0170.threestrikes

24
25
26
27
28

1

See also Hendon v. Baroya, No. 1:09-cv-0911 MJS P (E.D. Cal.) (order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis filed on July 29, 2010); Hendon v. Kulka, No. 2:14-cv-1171 KJN P
(E.D. Cal.) (order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on June 9, 2014).
2