Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01404-0/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

ALEX LEONARD AZEVEDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT 

COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

 Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-01404-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE 

DENIED

(ECF No. 2)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 9, 2024, along with a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis should be denied because he has had at least three actions or appeals dismissed as 

strikes and the allegations do not demonstrate that Plaintiff meets the imminent danger exception. 

I.

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted “to curb frivolous 

prisoner complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 

2011). Pursuant to the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statue was amended to include section 

Case 1:24-cv-01404-JLT-SAB Document 5 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 4
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

1915(g), a non-merits related screening device which precludes prisoners with three or more 

“strikes” from proceeding in forma pauperis unless they are under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 

2007). The statute provides that “[i]n 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). 

A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff reveals that he is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

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

complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court takes judicial 

notice1of the following United States District Court cases: (1) Azevedo v. Thompson, et al., No. 

2:17-cv-01262-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. April 10, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a claim at 

screening); (2) Azevedo v. Colusa County Jail et al., No. 2:17-cv-00472-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 

21, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a claim at screening); (3) Azevedo v. Smith, et al., No. 

2:16-cv-01214-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016) (dismissed for failure to state a claim at 

screening); (4) Azevedo v. Smith, et al., No. 2:16-cv-2809-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2007) 

(dismissed for failure to state a claim).2

The issue now becomes whether Plaintiff has met the imminent danger exception, which 

requires Plaintiff to show that he is under (1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and 

which turns on the conditions he faced at the time he filed his complaint on November 10, 2024.

3

 

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-1056. Conditions which posed imminent danger to Plaintiff at some 

1

Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 634 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 

1978). 

2 See also Azevedo v. Smith,, No. 2:18-cv-02818-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019) (finding plaintiff suffered three 

or more strikes and denying in forma pauperis). 

3 The “mailbox rule” announced by the Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to section 

1983 cases. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). Pursuant to the mailbox rule, pro se 

prisoner legal filings are deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers the document to prison officials for 

forwarding to the court clerk. Id. The proof of service attached to the Complaint is dated May 8, 2024, which the 

Court adopts as this action's constructive filing date. 

Case 1:24-cv-01404-JLT-SAB Document 5 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 4
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

earlier time are immaterial, as are any subsequent conditions. Id. at 1053. While the injury is 

merely procedural rather than a merits-based review of the claims, the allegations of imminent 

danger must still be plausible. Id. at 1055. 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time of filing. In the instant complaint, Plaintiff alleges that over the 

past several years he has filED different petitions in this Court and they are “being closed either 

the very same day its being filed or decided the very next day,” and he is not being treated 

equally. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff references several cases which were filed in this Sacramento 

Division of this Court. (Id. at 4-7.) Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate an imminent risk of 

serious physical injury at the time of filing. Therefore, Plaintiff must be required to pay the filing 

fee in full or have the action dismissed. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g)). 

II.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this action.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff 

not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and instead be directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee 

in full if he wishes to proceed with this action.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. The document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-01404-JLT-SAB Document 5 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 4
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

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: November 18, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01404-JLT-SAB Document 5 Filed 11/18/24 Page 4 of 4