Brown v. United States et al
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/27/2018 DENYING plaintiff's 7 request for leave to file an amended complaint; and plaintiff is GRANTED 14 days to submit the $400.00 filing fee for this action. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEXTER BROWN,
12
No. 2:18-cv-1719 CKD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER
UNITED STATES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action. On July 31, 2018,
17
18
the court denied plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiff has “struck out”
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)1 and plaintiff failed to point to facts in his complaint which
20
adequately demonstrate he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he
21
filed his complaint. See id; Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (court
22
may permit plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in spite of a finding that he has “struck out” if
23
he alleges he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of the filing of the
24
complaint).
25
Plaintiff has filed a document titled “motion for reconsideration.” However, in the
26
document he agrees that he did not adequately allege imminent danger of serious physical injury
27
1
See 2:17-cv-2041 KJM AC, ECF No. 14.
28
1
1
in his original complaint. Rather, he seeks leave to amend and has submitted a proposed
2
amended complaint.
3
The court has reviewed the amended complaint and finds that it still does not adequately
4
demonstrate plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his
5
complaint. As the court has previously explained, to meet his burden under § 1915(g) to
6
adequately allege “imminent danger of serious physical injury,” plaintiff must provide “specific
7
fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the
8
likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir.
9
2003). “Vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of harm are insufficient. White v. Colorado,
10
157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). That is, the “imminent danger” exception is available
11
“for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat . . . is real and proximate.”
12
Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
The only place in plaintiff’s amended complaint where he comes close to providing the
13
14
requisite level of specificity and plausibility for establishing “imminent danger of serious physical
15
injury” is in paragraph 6 on page 5. However, the allegations therein concern matters occurring
16
after plaintiff filed his complaint.
17
Also, while not entirely clear, it appears plaintiff seeks an order directing the F.B.I. to
18
investigate certain conditions of confinement pertaining to plaintiff (without providing any
19
adequate basis for issuance of such an order). Plaintiff does not seek an order which directly
20
addresses conditions of confinement themselves which goes against the spirit of permitting
21
“struck out” inmates to proceed if a state of emergency or near emergency exists.
22
While Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the court to grant
23
leave to amend as “justice so requires,” granting leave to amend here would be futile.
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint is denied (ECF No. 7); and
3
2. Plaintiff is granted 14 days within which to submit the $400 filing fee for this action.
4
Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
5
Dated: August 27, 2018
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
1
brow1719.so(2)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?