(PC) Jones v. Allen

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYON JONES, No. 1:25-cv-01088-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 J. ALLEN, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 15 Defendants. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED 16 (ECF No. 2) 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action, along with a 20 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) A review of the Court’s electronic filing 21 system reflects that Plaintiff has suffered three of more strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and is 22 not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis unless he was under imminent danger of serious 23 physical injury at the time of filing the complaint. 24 I. 25 DISCUSSION 26 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted “to curb frivolous 27 prisoner complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 28 1 2011). Pursuant to the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statue was amended to include section 2 1915(g), a non-merits related screening device which precludes prisoners with three or more 3 “strikes” from proceeding in forma pauperis unless they are under imminent danger of serious 4 physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 5 2007). The statute provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action … under this 6 section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any 7 facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 8 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 9 unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 10 A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff reveals that he is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 11 and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff, was, at the time the 12 complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court takes judicial 13 notice1 of the following United States District Court cases: (1) Jones v. Swartz, No. 2:14-cv-2877 14 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF 15 No. 15), case dismissed on August 13, 2015, for failure to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 16 21)); (2) Jones v. Madden, No. 2:22-cv-1592 DAD EFB (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on January 17 31, 2024, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 24)); (3) Jones v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-3338 DJC 18 CSK (E.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 19 10), case dismissed on June 6, 2025, for failure to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 14)); (4) 20 Jones v. Armenta-Morales, No. 3:24-cv-3902 CRB (N.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed with leave 21 to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 11), case dismissed on January 28, 2025, for failure 22 to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 13)); (5) Jones v. Castaneda, No. 3:24-cv-5076 CRB 23 (N.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 10), 24 case dismissed on January28, 2025, for failure to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 12)); and 25 (6) Jones v. Arce, No. 3:24-cv-7346 CRB (N.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend 26 for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 6), case dismissed on March 18, 2025, for failure to file an

27 1 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 634 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978). 28 1 amended complaint (ECF No. 8)).2 2 The issue now becomes whether Plaintiff has met the imminent danger exception, which 3 requires Plaintiff to show that he is under (1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and 4 which turns on the conditions he faced at the time he filed his complaint on August 14, 2025. 5 Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-1056. Conditions which posed imminent danger to Plaintiff at some 6 earlier time are immaterial, as are any subsequent conditions. Id. at 1053. While the injury is 7 merely procedural rather than a merits-based review of the claims, the allegations of imminent 8 danger must still be plausible. Id. at 1055. 9 Here, Plaintiff makes no plausible allegation that he faced an imminent danger of serious 10 physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. Plaintiff alleges that while he was housed at 11 Kern Valley State Prison in November 2023, confidential information was disclosed from his 12 central file which placed him at serious risk of physical injury. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has alleged 13 no facts to establish that he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of 14 filing.” See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP complaints 15 which “make[ ] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical 16 injury’ at the time of filing.”). Rather, Plaintiff allegations that confidential information was 17 disclosed to inmates occurred in 2023 at KVSP. However, Plaintiff is currently housed at Salinas 18 Valley State Prison. In addition, Plaintiff does not allege there is an ongoing danger such that 19 there is an imminent danger. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056–57 (“[A] prisoner who alleges that 20 prison officials continue with a practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the 21 past will satisfy the ‘ongoing danger’ standard and meet the imminence prong of the three-strikes 22 exception.”). Therefore, Plaintiff does not establish an exception to the three-strikes rule of § 23 1915(g), and he is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis and must pay the filing fee for 24 this action to proceed. 25 /// 26 /// 27 2 Plaintiff was also found to be a three-strikes litigant in Jones v. Cavello, Case No. 2:25-2314-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.), 28 Findings and Recommendations issued on August 20, 2025. (ECF No. 4) 1 Il. 2 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 3 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 4 | District Judge to this action. 5 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff 6 | not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and instead be directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee 7 | in full if he wishes to proceed with this action. 8 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 10 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 11 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be 12 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised 13 || that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 14 | appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 15 | 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ (Se 1g | Dated: _ September 3, 2025 OF STANLEY A. BOONE 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28