Hendon v. Stainer, et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/25/2017 ORDERING plaintiff to submit, within 21 days from the date of this order, the appropriate filing fee. (Henshaw, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-1033 KJN P
STAINER, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Court
records indicate that plaintiff has been deemed a “Three Strikes” inmate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Hendon v. Kulka, No. 2:14-cv-2581 AC P (order identifying plaintiff as three-
strikes litigant on August 3, 2015).1 The court takes judicial notice of the three cases identified
therein as § 1915(g) strikes, all of which were dismissed for failure to state a claim. All were
dismissed long before the filing of the instant action and constitute strikes under § 1915(g).
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).
Accordingly, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless
plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In his
complaint, plaintiff challenges the regulations, policies, and procedures that allow prison medical
staff to forcibly medicate plaintiff. Plaintiff claims doctors force plaintiff to consume
medications without providing him with notice and a pre-medication hearing, and that under these
procedures, doctors decide that medication is medically necessary and start the medication, with
the hearing scheduled to be held within ten days. Plaintiff claims he is subject to imminent
danger because prison doctors continue to force him to consume medications, “based on an
invalid initial order authorizing involuntary medication,” which causes him to suffer various side
effects, and places him at risk of future injury. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)
Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. Plaintiff concedes he is provided a hearing concerning the medication, albeit
after a ten day delay, and that there was a court order authorizing the medication, although he
contends such order is “invalid.” Therefore, plaintiff is able to challenge the involuntary
medication order at the hearing as well as in the court proceeding in which the order authorizing
the involuntary medication was issued. Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that plaintiff was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury when he commenced this action. Thus, plaintiff must
submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit,
within twenty-one days from the date of this order, the appropriate filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
Dated: May 25, 2017
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?