Perryman v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

Case No.: 3:24-cv-1633-JO-AHG DAVID PERRYMAN CDCR #AB-1204, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION vs. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

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