(PC) Johnson v. Calif. Correctional Health Care Services

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00921
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL EUGENE JOHNSON, A.K.A. No. 1:25-cv-00921 GSA (PC) DARRYL E. JOHNSON, 12 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO Plaintiff, VERIFY HIS CURRENT AND PAST 13 INMATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS v. 14 PLAINTIFF’S VERIFICATIONS DUE IN CALIF. CORRECTIONAL HEALTH FOURTEEN DAYS 15 CARE SERVICES, et al., ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 16 Defendants. CAUSE WHY HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD 17 NOT BE DENIED, CONSISTENT WITH 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 18 PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE OR, IN 19 THE ALTERNATIVE, EITHER: 20 (1) PAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE IN FULL, OR 21 (2) VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF THE 22 MATTER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(i) ALSO 23 DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 24 25 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 26 has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 27 2. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 1 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be ordered to verify his current prison 2 identification number at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) 3 as well as any past inmate identification numbers he has been assigned and/or used. He must do 4 so within fourteen days. 5 In addition, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why his application to proceed in 6 forma pauperis should not be denied and he be required to pay the filing fee in full, consistent 7 with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may either: 8 (1) pay the filing fee in full, or (2) voluntarily dismiss this matter. Plaintiff will be given fourteen 9 days as well to take one of these three courses of action. 10 I. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION ISSUE 11 In the complaint, Plaintiff has identified himself as “Darryl Johnson” who is currently 12 incarcerated at California State Prison – Solano, and who has a California Department of 13 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) identification number of “T52858.” See ECF No. 1 at 14 1 (case caption of complaint). A search of the CDCR’s database yields no results for a “Darryl 15 Johnson” with a prison identification number of “T52858.” See 16 https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/results?lastName=johnson&firstName=darrylindicates (last visited 17 7/28/25). Nor are there inmates named “Darryl Johnson” in the CDCR’s inmate locator database 18 who are incarcerated at CSP-Solano. See id. (indicating none of three CDCR inmates named 19 “Darryl Johnson” are incarcerated at CSP-Solano). Finally, a search solely for the prison 20 identification number of “T52858” in the CDCR’s database does not yield any currently 21 incarcerated individual with that identification number. See 22 https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/results?cdcrNumber=T52858 (last visited 7/28/25). 23 There is, however, a “Darrell Eugene Johnson” who is incarcerated at CSP-Solano. That 24 person has a CDCR identification number of “AX6100.” See 25 https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/results?lastName=johnson&firstName=darrell (last visited 7/28/25). 26 The Clerk of Court has assumed that this is Plaintiff, and it has added the “AX6100” prison 27 identification number to Plaintiff’s complaint and to the case caption of the docket. If Plaintiff’s 28 1 CDCR identification number is not “AX6100,” he must inform the Court immediately and inform 2 the Court what his correct CDCR identification number is. 3 II. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 4 “[In forma pauperis] status is not a constitutional right.” Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 5 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999) (brackets added); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) 6 (“To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.”). An inmate’s in forma pauperis status 7 may be revoked at any time if the court, either sua sponte or on a motion, determines that the 8 status was improvidently granted. Keeton v. Marshall, No. CV 17-01213 FMO (KS), 2018 WL 9 4381543, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2018) (citation omitted) (italics added); Owens v. Matthews, 10 No. CV 16-07755 JFW (KS), 2017 WL 603183, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (stating same). 11 The grant or refusal of permission to proceed in forma pauperis is left to the sound discretion of 12 the district court. Smart, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1963) (citing Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 13 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). The latitude given a district court in such matters is especially broad in civil 14 actions by prisoners against their wardens and other officials. Smart, 347 F.2d at 116 (footnote 15 citation omitted); Shobe v. People of State of California, 362 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir. 1966) (citing 16 Smart). 17 III. THREE STRIKES RULE: 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) states: 19 In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action 20 or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, 21 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, 22 or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 23

24 “It is well-settled that, in determining a [Section] 1915(g) ‘strike,’ the reviewing court 25 looks to the dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 26 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (brackets added) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). “[Section] 27 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s in forma pauperis status only when, after careful 28 1 evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, the district court 2 determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a 3 claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2006) (brackets added). “[W]hen a 4 district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds that [the claim] is 5 frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ such a complaint 6 is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such dismissal as denial of 7 the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. 8 Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original). Dismissal also counts 9 as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it 10 fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an 11 amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. 12 Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 An inmate who has accrued three strikes is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis 14 unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy 15 the exception, the plaintiff must have alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent 16 danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 17 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the 18 complaint that matters for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”); see also 19 Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312-14 (3rd Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 20 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. 21 O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); Lipsey v. Allison, No. 1:21-cv-00912 GSA, 2021 WL 22 2390424, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2021) (“The availability of the imminent danger exception 23 turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or 24 later time.”). 25 The danger faced by a prisoner at the time of filing must be imminent or ongoing. See, 26 e.g., Medberry, 185 F.3d at 1193 (finding plaintiff was not in either imminent or ongoing danger 27 and denying him ability to proceed in forma pauperis as three strikes litigant). “Imminent danger 28 of serious physical injury must be a real and present threat, not merely speculative or 1 hypothetical.” Lipsey, 2012 WL 2390424, at *3; Blackman v. Mjening, No. 1:16-cv-01421 LJO 2 GSA, 2016 WL 5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). In addition, “the imminent danger 3 exception to the [Prison Litigation Reform Act’s] three strikes provision requires a nexus between 4 the alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 5 F.4th 692, 695 (9th Cir. 2022) (brackets added). 6 IV. PLAINTIFF'S THREE STRIKES STATUS 7 A review of court records reveals that at least three cases brought by Plaintiff qualify as 8 strikes under Section 1915(g). The Court takes judicial notice of the following lawsuits1 9 previously filed by Plaintiff and dismissed on grounds listed in Section 1915(g) prior to him 10 bringing the instant matter: 11 • Johnson v. Davey, No. 1:17-cv-01257 LJO BAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018) (dismissed 12 for failure to state a claim); 13 • Johnson v. Doe, No. 3:22-cv-00264 JD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022) (“Doe”) (dismissed 14 as duplicative and frivolous in light of multiple complaints filed with same allegation); 15 • Johnson v. State of California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:21-cv-02348 WBS 16 DMC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2023) (dismissed for failure to state a claim), and 17 • Johnson v. Gastelo, No. 2:20-cv-08900 VBF SP (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2024) (dismissed 18 after initial dismissal on failure to state claim grounds, and leave to amend was 19 simultaneously granted, but Plaintiff then failed to amend).2 20 The Court notes that at the time that Plaintiff’s Doe case was dismissed (Johnson v Doe), 21 Plaintiff was in the custody of the San Mateo County Sheriff and incarcerated at the Maple Street 22

23 1 A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex 24 rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court 25 may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 26 2 “[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) 27 the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).” Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 28 2017) (brackets added). 1 Correctional Center, located in Redwood City, CA. See Doe, ECF No. 1 at 1; see also Doe, case 2 caption of docket. At that time, Plaintiff’s inmate identification number was: “1099468.” See id. 3 Plaintiff will be ordered to verify whether he was assigned the “1099468” identification number 4 while in jail. 5 V. DISCUSSION 6 A. Case Brought After Three Strikes Accrued 7 Plaintiff signed the complaint on July 20, 2025,3 and it was docketed in this Court on July 8 22, 2025. See ECF No. 1 at 1, 18. July 20, 2025, is after the three strikes cases identified above 9 had been fully adjudicated. 10 Because the above-referenced strike cases were dismissed on Section 1915(g) grounds 11 before the instant matter was brought before the Court, as a three strikes litigant, Plaintiff was 12 required to pay the filing fee in full for this matter prior to proceeding in it unless, at the time that 13 he brought it on July 20, 2025, he alleged an adequate showing that he was in imminent danger of 14 serious physical harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (serious physical harm requirement). 15 B. No Imminent Danger Alleged in Instant Matter 16 A review of the complaint indicates that Plaintiff does not make any plausible allegations 17 that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time that he filed it this month. 18 See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that in August of 2022, when he was sent to the North 19 Kern Reception Center, he told prison medical staff that he could not be incarcerated at that 20 particular prison because he “was high risk medical” and “mentally impaired.” See ECF No. 1 at 21 8 (Claim One). He asserts that his medical conditions made him more susceptible to infections 22 and that after being made to reside at North Kern Reception Center he suffered injuries, including 23 injuries to his toes and foot due to a cocci fungus infection. See generally id. at 8-15. He states 24 that he has since been transferred to “Solono Medical Fac” where he states that he is currently 25

3 The signing date of a pleading is the earliest possible filing date pursuant to the mailbox rule. 26 See Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 769 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating constructive filing date for 27 prisoner giving pleading to prison authorities is date pleading is signed); Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 28 U.S. 408 (2005). 1 incarcerated, however he does not state when he was transferred. 2 Importantly though, because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred 3 while he was housed at North Kern Reception Center, and none arising from the conditions where 4 he is presently housed at Solono State Prison, he has not shown that he was in imminent danger 5 of serious physical harm at the time he filed the instant complaint as the availability of the 6 imminent danger exception "turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint 7 was filed, not at some earlier or later time." Andrews v. Cervantes 493 F.3d 1047 at 1053, 1056; 8 Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003).…" 9 C. Plaintiff Is Required to Pay Filing Fee in Full First 10 Because Plaintiff was a three strikes litigant when he filed the instant case, and he has not 11 demonstrated that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm when he did so, Section 12 1915(g) precludes him from proceeding any further with this matter prior to him first paying the 13 filing fee for it in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Prior to ordering him to do so, however, 14 Plaintiff will first be directed to show cause why he is not a three strikes litigant within the 15 meaning of Section 1915(g) and why his application to proceed in forma pauperis (see ECF No. 16 2) should not be denied as a result. In the alternative, Plaintiff may either pay the filing fee in full 17 or voluntarily dismiss this matter. Plaintiff will be given fourteen days to take one of these three 18 courses of action. 19 VI. CONCLUSION 20 There is considerable confusion regarding Plaintiff’s correct CDCR identification number 21 and the legally correct spelling of Plaintiff’s name. As a result, Plaintiff will be ordered to verify 22 his correct name and prison ID number. In addition, Plaintiff will be ordered to verify whether he 23 was ever assigned the inmate identification number “1099468.” He will have fourteen days to do 24 both. 25 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Prior to bringing 26 this matter before the Court, however, it appears Plaintiff had accumulated at least three strikes in 27 previous cases within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In addition, a review of his instant 28 complaint indicates that he has not alleged any claims of imminent danger of serious physical 1 harm at the time that he filed the complaint on July 20, 2025. See generally ECF No. 1. For 2 these reasons, Plaintiff is required under Section 1915(g) to pay the filing fee in full in this case 3 before proceeding any further with it. 4 Prior to ordering Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full, Plaintiff will first be ordered to show 5 cause why his in forma pauperis application should not be denied and instead he be required to 6 pay the filing fee in full in this case. As an alternative to filing showing of cause, however, 7 Plaintiff may either pay the filing fee in full, or he may voluntarily dismiss the matter pursuant to 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff will be given fourteen days to take one 9 of these three courses of action. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff is ordered to formally VERIFY with the Court: 12 a. What his correct full name is and what his CURRENT prison identification 13 number is with the California Department of Corrections, and 14 b. Whether he has ever been ASSIGNED the inmate identification number 15 “1099468”; 16 2. Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE why his application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis (ECF No. 2) should not be DENIED in light of his three strikes litigant status. See 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 19 3. As an ALTERNATIVE to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may either: 20 a. PAY the filing fee IN FULL, or 21 b. VOLUNTARILY DISMISS this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 22 4. Plaintiff shall have fourteen days to comply with this order in its entirety. 23 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply fully with this order within the time 24 allotted may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: July 29, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28