Kevin Duane Hickman v. State of California, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02507
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN, No. 2:25-cv-2507 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action. This proceeding 18 was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 20 reads as follows: 21 In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . [in forma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated 22 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 23 frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious 24 physical injury. 25 A review of court records reveals that plaintiff has filed two actions that were dismissed 26 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and judgment is final: Hickman v. 27 Chisolm, 2:19-cv-1254 TLN AC P; Hickman v. Chisolm, 2:19-cv-1725 KJM DB P. Plaintiff also 28 filed an action that was dismissed as duplicative and judgment is final: Hickman v. Chisolm, 1 2:19-cv-1828 KJM AC P. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that a duplicative suit is either 2 | frivolous or malicious. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 There is no allegation by plaintiff that he is under imminent danger of serious physical 4 || injury. 5 In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should 6 || be denied. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 8 | court judge to this case. 9 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and 11 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $405 filing fee. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 15 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 16 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 17 || time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 18 | Cir. 1991). 19 | Dated: September 12, 2025 / ae / a /y Ze

21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 | 1 hick2507.3ks 25 26 27 28