Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00982/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00982-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EIBON MCELROY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00982 EPG (PC)

ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S IFP 

APPLICATION BE DENIED AND THAT

PLAINTIFF BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE 

FILING FEE IN FULL IF HE WANTS TO 

PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION

(ECF No. 6)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Eibon McElroy1is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action filed on 

August 21, 2024. (ECF No. 1). On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff also filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 6).

Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this

action and because he was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 

it, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $405 filing fee in full if he wants 

to proceed with the action.

I. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Pertinent here is the so called “three strikes provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

1 Plaintiff also filed cases in this Court as “E.J. McElroy” and “Latwahn McElroy,” see, e.g., docket in 

McElroy v. Warden, et al., 2:17-cv-1042-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.).

Case 1:24-cv-00982-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 5
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

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this 

section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds 

that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger 

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In determining whether a dismissal counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g),

“the reviewing court looks to the dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it. . . . This 

means that the procedural mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while 

informative, is not dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal 

citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has “interpreted the final form of dismissal under the statute, 

‘fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ to be essentially synonymous with a 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal.” Id. (alteration in original).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Strikes

Plaintiff filed this action on August 21, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The Court takes judicial 

notice2of the following four cases, each of which counts as a “strike”: (1) McElroy v. 

Gebbmedin, No. 1:08-cv-0124-LJO-GSA (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008) (order dismissing action for 

failure to state a claim); (2) McElroy v. Schultz, No. 1:08-cv-0179-OWW-MJS (E.D. Cal. Apr. 

30, 2010) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim); (3) McElroy v. CDC, 2:08-cv0733-HWG (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2009) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim); and 

(4) McElroy v. Ground, No. 1:13-cv-483-MJS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (order dismissing action 

for failure to state a claim). 

Moreover, Plaintiff has previously been denied IFP status on multiple occasions because 

of his three-striker status. See, e.g., McElroy v. C.H.C.F., No. 2:17-CV-1042 AC P, 2018 WL 

272725, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. McElroy v. 

C.H.C.F. Warden, 2018 WL 888696 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018); McElroy v. Castro, No. 1:23-CV0559 JLT SKO (PC), 2023 WL 4088507, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023).

//

2

“In particular, a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases . . . .” United States v. 

Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:24-cv-00982-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 5
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

B. Imminent Danger

Because Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this action, Plaintiff is 

precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was 

filed, in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The availability of the imminent danger 

exception “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at 

some earlier or later time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative 

or hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, No. 1:16-CV-01421-LJO-GSA (PC), 2016 WL 5815905, 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide 

“specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct 

evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 

1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are 

insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998). The “imminent 

danger” exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat

. . . is real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Additionally, there is a nexus requirement between the danger alleged and the claims 

asserted: “Thus, in order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes 

prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to 

unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 

692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger 

determination, the Court must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1055.

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, challenges numerous aspects 

of his medical care between January and March 2021 at North Kern State Prison. (ECF No. 1 at 

4–7). Plaintiff alleges that he has numerous health issues, including exhaustion, fatigue, poor 

breathing, limited mobility, lack of balance, allergies, and incontinence. (Id.) While the complaint 

is generally difficult to understand, Plaintiff seems to complain of issues with his medication 

refills, placement at a prison facility not equipped to handle his medical needs, and that no one 

“arrange[d] for plaintiff to obtain necessities.” (Id.) Plaintiff also mentions requests for reasonable 

Case 1:24-cv-00982-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 5
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

4

accommodations and being interviewed by ADA coordinator (ECF No. 1 at 4, 6); however, it is 

not clear from Plaintiff’s allegations whether he was denied reasonable accommodations, and if 

so, which ones. 

Such allegations are insufficient to show that there is a real and imminent threat to 

Plaintiff’s personal safety under the standards described above. Plaintiff's wide-ranging 

allegations fail to demonstrate how plaintiff may have been “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury” when he filed his complaint. This conclusion is underscored by the fact that 

events at issue occurred at a different prison between January and March of 2021, and that 

Plaintiff did not file his complaint until more than three years later, August 21, 2024, without 

identifying a new or ongoing risk of injury. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate that he was in imminent danger of physical injury when he filed the complaint. See 

Driver v. Pohovich, No. 2:22-CV-1672 DB P, 2023 WL 2394154, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2023), 

report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 8004324 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2023) (concluding 

that Plaintiff did not meet the imminent danger exception where “[t]here [was] nothing in the 

complaint that would indicate plaintiff was under threat of imminent danger based on the 

excessive force incidents” alleged in the complaint that purportedly occurred about two months 

before filing the complaint). 

Because Plaintiff is a “three-striker” and does not appear to have been in imminent danger 

when he filed this action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $405

filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with the action.

III. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court finds that under § 1915(g) Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this 

action.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a District Judge to 

this case.

And IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (ECF No. 6). 

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff be directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee in 

full if he wants to proceed with this action.

Case 1:24-cv-00982-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Plaintiff be advised that failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in the dismissal 

of this case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 pages, including 

exhibits. 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00982-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 5 of 5