Reginald Edward Spearman v. Raechelle Prescott-Martin

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00235
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD EDWARD SPEARMAN, No. 2:25-cv-00235-DAD-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 RAECHELLE PRESCOTT-MARTIN, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 3, 6) 16

17 18 Plaintiff Reginald Edward Spearman is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil 19 action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 23, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $405.00 in required fees within thirty 23 days or face dismissal of this action. (Doc. No. 3 at 4.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 24 concluded that plaintiff had previously filed three actions that were dismissed as frivolous, 25 malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and his complaint in this action does not demonstrate that 26 he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing the complaint. (Id. 27 at 2–3.) Under these circumstances, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) does not 28 permit the plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 1–2.) The magistrate judge therefore 1 concluded that plaintiff should not be given an opportunity to file a motion to proceed in forma 2 pauperis. (Doc. No. 3 at 1.) 3 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 4 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5 4.) On January 6, 2026, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations and a 6 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 5, 6.) 7 In those objections plaintiff argues that he is impoverished, and that to deny him in forma 8 pauperis status would be to deny him the equal benefit of all laws. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) 9 Additionally, plaintiff notes that each of the prior complaints in question he has filed was brought 10 pro se and he is to be held to a less stringent standard in light of that status. (Id. at 1–2.) Finally, 11 plaintiff contends that to require payment of the filing fee in this case would deprive plaintiff of 12 equal protection based on his indigent class. (Id. at 2.) 13 However, none of these arguments advanced by plaintiff in his objections constitute 14 exceptions to the three strikes provision of the PLRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Additionally, the 15 Ninth Circuit has held that “indigent prisoners are not a suspect class” and “where a fundamental 16 interest is not at stake, § 1915(g) does not infringe upon an inmate’s meaningful access to the 17 courts.” Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting equal protection 18 challenge to § 1915(g)). As noted by the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he Supreme Court has specifically 19 required the waiver of filing fees for indigent persons who are challenging termination of their 20 parental rights, . . . or seeking a divorce.” Id. at 1180. Since no fundamental interest is at stake 21 here, where plaintiff alleges misconduct by defendant in administering plaintiff’s grandmother’s 22 estate, requiring that the filing fee be paid in order to proceed does not infringe upon plaintiff’s 23 meaningful access to the courts. (Doc. No. 1.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 26 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 27 record and by proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 For the reasons explained above: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 23, 2025 (Doc. No. 3) are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED; and 5 3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the entire $405.00 in required fees within thirty days of 6 the date of entry of this order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this 7 action. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ” | Dated: _ October 31, 2025 Dae A. 2, sel 10 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28