Perryman v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 21, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01633
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 3:24-cv-1633-JO-AHG DAVID PERRYMAN 11 CDCR #AB-1204, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 13 vs. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 14 FEES REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 15 CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff David Perryman is a prisoner at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional 20 Facility in San Diego, California. Proceeding pro se, he filed a civil rights complaint 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkts. 1, 22 2. Under § 1915(g), a prisoner with three or more “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals 23 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, “cannot proceed IFP” 24 absent allegations of “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Andrews v. King, 398 25 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Perryman admits that he is one 26 of these prisoners but attempts to plead that he is facing imminent danger. See Perryman 27 v. Lynch, 2023 WL 5835728, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2023) (identifying eight prior strikes 1 || disqualifying Perryman from proceeding IFP). In his September 10, 2024 complaint, 2 Perryman alleges that he suffered a heart attack and broke some of his ribs on July 27, 3 || 2024, and asserts that the follow-up medical care he has been receiving is inadequate and 4 ||ineffective. Jd. at 5. While Plaintiff identifies a past injury and alleges ongoing inadequate 5 || care for those injuries, he does not identify a specific, imminent harm that will result from 6 ||not receiving his preferred treatment. Because generalized fears of possible future harm 7 || do not constitute allegations of specific, imminent dangers, he has not met the requirements 8 ||to proceed IFP in this matter. See Hernandez v. Williams, No. 21-cv-347-MMA-KSC, 9 WL 1317376, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021). 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Perryman’s motion to proceed IFP, Dkt. 2, and 11 || DISMISSES this civil action for failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee 12 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Accordingly, the Court also DENIES Perryman’s motion 13 || for temporary restraining order as moot. Dkt. 6. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court 14 |/to CLOSE this case. 15 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: October 21, 2024 18 19 20 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27