Vincent Anthony Callender v. Riley, et al.

E.D. California

Vincent Anthony Callender v. Riley, et al.

DecidedJune 30, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00849

StatusUnknown

This text of Vincent Anthony Callender v. Riley, et al. (Vincent Anthony Callender v. Riley, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vincent Anthony Callender v. Riley, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENT ANTHONY CALLENDER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00849-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 14 RILEY, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS 15 Defendants. Docs. 2, 8 16 17 Vincent Anthony Callender seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge reviewed Callender’s litigation history and 19 found he is subject to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Doc. 8 at 1-2. The 20 magistrate judge also reviewed the allegations of the complaint and found Callender’s allegation 21 did not invoke the imminent danger exception to section 1915. Id. at 2-3. The magistrate judge 22 recommended the Court deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and direct Callender to pay 23 the filing fee to proceed with the action. Id. at 3. 24 On July 17, 2025, the Court served the findings and recommendations on Callender and 25 notified him that any objections must be filed with 14 days. Doc. 8 at 3. The Court instructed: 26 “Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be 27 referenced by CM/ECF document and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any 28 pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered.” Id. (emphasis omitted). After 1 receiving extensions of time, Callender filed objections on September 18, 2025. Despite the 2 Court’s instructions, the objections filed total 104 pages, including exhibits. 3 The Ninth Circuit explained, judicial “resources are limited” and the Court may impose 4 limits so parties not abuse the resources by submitting a “mass of words rather than a true brief." 5 N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997). Towards this end, courts 6 impose various sanctions for failure to comply with imposed limits, including striking a brief 7 entirely or declining to consider pages beyond the limit. See Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 8 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming the district court’s decision to strike a brief that did not 9 comply with the page limit); King Cnty. v. Rasmussen, 143 F.Supp.2d 1225 (W.D. Wash. 2001) 10 (striking only the portion of the filing that exceeded local rule page limitation), aff'd, 299 F.3d 11 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court exercises its discretion to disregard the exhibits—including 12 nearly 80 pages—that caused Callender’s objections to vastly exceed the page limit imposed. See 13 N/S Corp., 127 F.3d at 1146; Swanson, 87 F.3d at 345. Although the written objections also 14 exceed the imposed page limit, the Court has considered the written analysis.1 15 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review. 16 Having carefully reviewed the file, including the objections, the Court concludes that the 17 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Callender fails 18 to identify allegations in the complaint that demonstrate that he was in any imminent danger of 19 serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed. Allegations involving incidents that 20 post-date the filing of his complaint, and involving other inmates, do not satisfy the exception 21 from the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See, e.g., Hunter v. Kalwinder, 2017 U.S. 22 Dist. LEXIS 10568, at*2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2017) (“events that post-date the complaint, are not 23 relevant to the section 1915(g) analysis”); Manago v. Cahow, 2021 WL 621093, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 24 Jan. 6, 2021) (danger to others in custody does not support a conclusion the plaintiff was in 25 imminent danger as required under the exception). 26 /// 27 1 Callender is cautioned that future failures to comply with restrictions ordered by the Court may 28 result in additional sanctions, including the striking of a non-compliant filing in its entirety. 1 The Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 17, 2025 (Doc. 8) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 5 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within thirty days (30) days 6 following the date of service of this order. 7 If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be 8 dismissed without further notice. 9 19 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ June 29, 2026 | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENT ANTHONY CALLENDER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00849-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 14 RILEY, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS 15 Defendants. Docs. 2, 8 16 17 Vincent Anthony Callender seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge reviewed Callender’s litigation history and 19 found he is subject to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Doc. 8 at 1-2. The 20 magistrate judge also reviewed the allegations of the complaint and found Callender’s allegation 21 did not invoke the imminent danger exception to section 1915. Id. at 2-3. The magistrate judge 22 recommended the Court deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and direct Callender to pay 23 the filing fee to proceed with the action. Id. at 3. 24 On July 17, 2025, the Court served the findings and recommendations on Callender and 25 notified him that any objections must be filed with 14 days. Doc. 8 at 3. The Court instructed: 26 “Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be 27 referenced by CM/ECF document and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any 28 pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered.” Id. (emphasis omitted). After 1 receiving extensions of time, Callender filed objections on September 18, 2025. Despite the 2 Court’s instructions, the objections filed total 104 pages, including exhibits. 3 The Ninth Circuit explained, judicial “resources are limited” and the Court may impose 4 limits so parties not abuse the resources by submitting a “mass of words rather than a true brief." 5 N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997). Towards this end, courts 6 impose various sanctions for failure to comply with imposed limits, including striking a brief 7 entirely or declining to consider pages beyond the limit. See Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 8 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming the district court’s decision to strike a brief that did not 9 comply with the page limit); King Cnty. v. Rasmussen, 143 F.Supp.2d 1225 (W.D. Wash. 2001) 10 (striking only the portion of the filing that exceeded local rule page limitation), aff'd, 299 F.3d 11 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court exercises its discretion to disregard the exhibits—including 12 nearly 80 pages—that caused Callender’s objections to vastly exceed the page limit imposed. See 13 N/S Corp., 127 F.3d at 1146; Swanson, 87 F.3d at 345. Although the written objections also 14 exceed the imposed page limit, the Court has considered the written analysis.1 15 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review. 16 Having carefully reviewed the file, including the objections, the Court concludes that the 17 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Callender fails 18 to identify allegations in the complaint that demonstrate that he was in any imminent danger of 19 serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed. Allegations involving incidents that 20 post-date the filing of his complaint, and involving other inmates, do not satisfy the exception 21 from the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See, e.g., Hunter v. Kalwinder, 2017 U.S. 22 Dist. LEXIS 10568, at*2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2017) (“events that post-date the complaint, are not 23 relevant to the section 1915(g) analysis”); Manago v. Cahow, 2021 WL 621093, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 24 Jan. 6, 2021) (danger to others in custody does not support a conclusion the plaintiff was in 25 imminent danger as required under the exception). 26 /// 27 1 Callender is cautioned that future failures to comply with restrictions ordered by the Court may 28 result in additional sanctions, including the striking of a non-compliant filing in its entirety. 1 The Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 17, 2025 (Doc. 8) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 5 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within thirty days (30) days 6 following the date of service of this order. 7 If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be 8 dismissed without further notice. 9 19 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ June 29, 2026 | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vincent Anthony Callender v. Riley, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-anthony-callender-v-riley-et-al-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack