(PC) Carroll v. State of California
This text of (PC) Carroll v. State of California ((PC) Carroll v. State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAINE CARROLL, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00627 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. (Docs. 2, 9) 16 17 Tremaine Carroll is an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, and asserts she suffered 18 violations of her civil rights while she was in the custody of California Department of Corrections 19 and Rehabilitation. (See generally Doc. 1.) Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis in the 20 action. (Doc. 2.) The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff is subject to the three-strikes bar 21 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because “Plaintiff had at least three ‘strikes’ prior to filing this action and 22 has not alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury connected to claims asserted in the 23 case.” (Doc. 9 at 2–3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny 24 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full. (Id. at 7.) 25 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 10.) 26 However, Plaintiff does not address the specific findings made by the magistrate judge. (See 27 generally id.) Rather, the objections—which total more than 160 pages—contain extensive 28 references to Plaintiff’s litigation history, as well as actions taken against others. Plaintiff does 1 not dispute the finding that the actions identified by the magistrate judge qualify as strikes under 2 Section 1915(g). To the extent Plaintiff asserts fear of harm based upon past experiences in 3 custody, such do not mandate a determination that she was in imminent danger at the time of 4 filing the complaint in this action. See Blackman v. Mjening, 2016 WL 5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 5 Oct. 4, 2016) (“Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not 6 merely speculative or hypothetical”); see also Miller v. McDaniel, 2021 WL 388458, at *2 (E.D. 7 Tex. Jan. 7, 2021) (“[Plaintiff] fails to show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical 8 injury. While he states that he is in imminent danger as a result of a previous alleged sexual 9 assault, such claim concerns past harm. In other words, … [his] claim of imminent danger stems 10 from past acts and his fear of future harm”). Likewise, references to the experiences of other 11 transgender inmates do not support a conclusion that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious 12 physical injury. See, e.g., Manago v. Cahow, 2021 WL 621093, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021) 13 (danger to others in custody does not support a conclusion the plaintiff was in imminent danger as 14 required under the exception to Section 1915(g)). Thus, Plaintiff does not demonstrate that she is 15 in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 16 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 17 Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the 18 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Therefore, the 19 Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 11, 2024 (Doc. 9) are 21 ADOPTED in full. 22 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 23 3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay in full 24 the $405.00 filing fee to proceed with this action. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in 2 the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ February 27, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Carroll v. State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-carroll-v-state-of-california-caed-2025.