Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01079/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01079-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEY LEON SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01079-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. No. 2)

Plaintiff Rickey Leon Scott is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2019, plaintiff commenced this action by filing a 

complaint (Doc. No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On August 12, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that he be 

required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action because: (1) he is subject 

to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint 

do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. 

No. 4 at 2.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 

Case 1:19-cv-01079-KES-HBK Document 7 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On 

September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 6.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 

plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Plaintiff’s primary objections to the findings and recommendations are that the cases cited 

by the magistrate judge as prior strike dismissals were brought by plaintiff twenty-eight years 

ago, and that he had pro bono counsel in Scott v. Smith, so that case “must be viewed on [his] 

feeling of disgruntled for pro bono’s lost on proper litigation, not [him] personally.” (Doc. No. 6 

at 3) (sic). But, the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) is not subject to expiration or time 

limits; the passage of time has no effect on whether a prior dismissal constitutes a strike dismissal 

under the statute. Additionally, though plaintiff asserts that he had pro bono counsel in Scott v. 

Smith, the pending findings and recommendations do not rely on the two Scott v. Smith cases as

prior trikes, and the court’s dismissal orders in those cases reflect that plaintiff had represented 

himself pro se. See Scott v. Smith, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49, No. C 98-4920 MHP (N.D. Cal. 

1999); Scott v. Smith, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1209, No. C 99-394 MHP (N.D. Cal. 1999). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 

recommendations. Furthermore, plaintiff’s objections do not address the magistrate judge’s 

finding that the allegations set forth in plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to trigger the 

“imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception under § 1915(g).

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 4) issued on August 12, 2019, are 

adopted in full;

2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01079-KES-HBK Document 7 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 

$400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action;

4. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time will result in the 

dismissal of this action; and

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01079-KES-HBK Document 7 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3