6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00793-EPG (PC)
10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF 11 v. BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE $402.00 FILING FEE IN FULL IF HE WANTS TO 12 BRIAN CATES, et al., PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION
13 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 15 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Melvin Simmons (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action. The 18 Court received the complaint commencing this action on May 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1). 19 As the Court finds that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing the action and 20 that Plaintiff was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the 21 action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402 filing fee in full if 22 he wants to proceed with the action. 23 II. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides 25 that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action … under this section if the prisoner has, 26 on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action 27 or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 28 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is 1 under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 2 In determining whether a case counts as a “strike,” “the reviewing court looks to the 3 dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it…. This means that the procedural 4 mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is not 5 dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). See 6 also O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (“no ‘particular formalities are 7 necessary for an order that serves as the basis of [an involuntary] dismissal.’”) (quoting 8 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986-87 (9th Cir. 1999)) (alteration in original). 9 III. ANALYSIS 10 i. Strikes 11 Plaintiff initiated this action on May 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1). The Court finds that, prior 12 to this date, Plaintiff had at least three cases dismissed that count as “strikes.” 13 The Court takes judicial notice of Simmons v. Kishbaugh, E.D. CA, Case No. 2:19-cv- 14 01650, ECF Nos. 12 & 15, in which Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan and District Judge 15 Troy L. Nunley found that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing the action. The 16 action was filed on August 23, 2019. Id. at ECF No. 1. 17 The Court also takes judicial notice of: 1) Simmons v. Lamarque, N.D. CA, Case No. 18 5:03-cv-04509, ECF No. 17 (dismissed for failure to state a claim); 2) Simmons v. Giurbino, 19 N.D. CA, Case No. 3:11-cv-02169, ECF No. 4 (dismissed for failure to state a claim); 3) 20 Simmons v. Kernon, N.D. CA, Case No. 5:16-cv-07319, ECF No. 28 (dismissed for failure to 21 state a claim); 4) Simmons v. California Department of Corrections, E.D. CA, Case No. 2:21- 22 cv-01236, ECF Nos. 11 & 13 (dismissed for failure to state a claim). 23 Based on the actions listed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff had at least three 24 “strikes” prior to filing this action. 25 ii. Imminent Danger 26 As Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this action, Plaintiff is precluded 27 from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was filed, in 28 imminent danger of serious physical injury. The availability of the imminent danger exception 1 “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier 2 or later time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). “Imminent danger 3 of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or 4 hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, 2016 WL 5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To 5 meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing 6 serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent 7 serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague 8 and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 9 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). See also Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050 (“[C]onclusory 10 assertions” are “insufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g)….”). The “imminent danger” 11 exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat … is 12 real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). 13 Additionally, “the complaint of a three-strikes litigant must reveal a nexus between the 14 imminent danger it alleges and the claims it asserts, in order for the litigant to qualify for the 15 ‘imminent danger’ exception of § 1915(g). In deciding whether such a nexus exists, we will 16 consider (1) whether the imminent danger of serious physical injury that a three-strikes litigant 17 alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a 18 favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury. The three-strikes litigant must meet both 19 requirements in order to proceed [in forma pauperis].” Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 20 WL 5255377, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) (quoting Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 21 298-99 (2d Cir. 2009)). See also Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]n order to 22 qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege 23 imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct 24 alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.”). 25 Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger determination the Court 26 must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 Plaintiff generally complains about infringement of intellectual property rights, being 28 illegally detained, and a search and seizure that appears to have occurred before he arrived at 1 California Correctional Institution. There are no allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint suggesting 2 that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his 3 complaint. Plaintiff does allege that he is in “imminent danger of instantaneous death and 4 serious great bodily harm…,” (ECF No. 1, p. 4), but this allegation is conclusory and there are 5 no factual allegations supporting it. 6 As Plaintiff is a “three-striker” and was not in imminent danger when he filed this 7 action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402 filing fee in full if 8 he wants to proceed with the action. 9 IV. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ORDER 10 The Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00793-EPG (PC)
10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF 11 v. BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE $402.00 FILING FEE IN FULL IF HE WANTS TO 12 BRIAN CATES, et al., PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION
13 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 15 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Melvin Simmons (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action. The 18 Court received the complaint commencing this action on May 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1). 19 As the Court finds that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing the action and 20 that Plaintiff was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the 21 action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402 filing fee in full if 22 he wants to proceed with the action. 23 II. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides 25 that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action … under this section if the prisoner has, 26 on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action 27 or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 28 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is 1 under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 2 In determining whether a case counts as a “strike,” “the reviewing court looks to the 3 dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it…. This means that the procedural 4 mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is not 5 dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). See 6 also O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (“no ‘particular formalities are 7 necessary for an order that serves as the basis of [an involuntary] dismissal.’”) (quoting 8 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986-87 (9th Cir. 1999)) (alteration in original). 9 III. ANALYSIS 10 i. Strikes 11 Plaintiff initiated this action on May 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1). The Court finds that, prior 12 to this date, Plaintiff had at least three cases dismissed that count as “strikes.” 13 The Court takes judicial notice of Simmons v. Kishbaugh, E.D. CA, Case No. 2:19-cv- 14 01650, ECF Nos. 12 & 15, in which Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan and District Judge 15 Troy L. Nunley found that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing the action. The 16 action was filed on August 23, 2019. Id. at ECF No. 1. 17 The Court also takes judicial notice of: 1) Simmons v. Lamarque, N.D. CA, Case No. 18 5:03-cv-04509, ECF No. 17 (dismissed for failure to state a claim); 2) Simmons v. Giurbino, 19 N.D. CA, Case No. 3:11-cv-02169, ECF No. 4 (dismissed for failure to state a claim); 3) 20 Simmons v. Kernon, N.D. CA, Case No. 5:16-cv-07319, ECF No. 28 (dismissed for failure to 21 state a claim); 4) Simmons v. California Department of Corrections, E.D. CA, Case No. 2:21- 22 cv-01236, ECF Nos. 11 & 13 (dismissed for failure to state a claim). 23 Based on the actions listed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff had at least three 24 “strikes” prior to filing this action. 25 ii. Imminent Danger 26 As Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this action, Plaintiff is precluded 27 from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was filed, in 28 imminent danger of serious physical injury. The availability of the imminent danger exception 1 “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier 2 or later time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). “Imminent danger 3 of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or 4 hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, 2016 WL 5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To 5 meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing 6 serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent 7 serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague 8 and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 9 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). See also Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050 (“[C]onclusory 10 assertions” are “insufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g)….”). The “imminent danger” 11 exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat … is 12 real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). 13 Additionally, “the complaint of a three-strikes litigant must reveal a nexus between the 14 imminent danger it alleges and the claims it asserts, in order for the litigant to qualify for the 15 ‘imminent danger’ exception of § 1915(g). In deciding whether such a nexus exists, we will 16 consider (1) whether the imminent danger of serious physical injury that a three-strikes litigant 17 alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a 18 favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury. The three-strikes litigant must meet both 19 requirements in order to proceed [in forma pauperis].” Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 20 WL 5255377, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) (quoting Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 21 298-99 (2d Cir. 2009)). See also Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]n order to 22 qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must allege 23 imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct 24 alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.”). 25 Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger determination the Court 26 must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 Plaintiff generally complains about infringement of intellectual property rights, being 28 illegally detained, and a search and seizure that appears to have occurred before he arrived at 1 California Correctional Institution. There are no allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint suggesting 2 that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his 3 complaint. Plaintiff does allege that he is in “imminent danger of instantaneous death and 4 serious great bodily harm…,” (ECF No. 1, p. 4), but this allegation is conclusory and there are 5 no factual allegations supporting it. 6 As Plaintiff is a “three-striker” and was not in imminent danger when he filed this 7 action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402 filing fee in full if 8 he wants to proceed with the action. 9 IV. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ORDER 10 The Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff not be allowed proceed in forma pauperis 13 in this action; and 14 2. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with 15 this action. 16 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 17 judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 18 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 19 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 21 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 22 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 23 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ eee IE II III IE IIE IID IIE
1 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 2 || judge to this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. > ll Dated: _May 25, 2023 hey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28