Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00070-0/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

RICHARD A. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. MILAM, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00070-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND REQUIRE PAYMENT OF 

FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN TWENTYONE DAYS

ECF No. 2

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS

ORDER TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT 

JUDGE 

Plaintiff Richard A. Evans is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2020, plaintiff filed an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil 

action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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). Plaintiff has had three or more actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or 

Case 1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK Document 3 Filed 01/27/20 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

for failing to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted.1 Plaintiff has been informed on 

previous occasions that he is subject to § 1915(g).2 Plaintiff has also not satisfied the imminent 

danger exception to § 1915(g). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 

2007). Plaintiff’s cursory allegations about leaking and flooding do not show that he was in any 

imminent, personal danger at the time of filing, and do not describe any actions of the defendants 

or connect any of the defendants to the alleged harm. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications should be denied, and he should 

pay the filing fee in full, since he has accrued three or more strikes and has not shown that he was

under imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time that this action was initiated. 

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the 

findings and recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that:

1. plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, ECF No. 2, be denied;

2. plaintiff be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption 

of these findings and recommendations; and

3. if plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption of 

these findings and recommendations, all pending motions be terminated, and this action 

be dismissed without prejudice.

We submit these findings and recommendations to a district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

 

1 The cases include (1) Evans v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:17-cv-01891-JAM-KJN (E.D. 

Cal. 2018) (dismissed for failure to prosecute following a screening order finding that the complaint 

failed to state a claim); (2) Evans v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:17-cv-01890-WBS-DB 

(E.D. Cal. 2018) (dismissed for failure to prosecute following a screening order finding that the 

complaint failed to state a claim); and (3) Evans v. Suisun Police Dep’t, No. 2:17-cv-01889-KJMCMK (E.D. Cal. 2018) (dismissed in 2018 for failure to state a claim).

2

See Evans v. Siebel, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00819-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. 2019); Evans v. Sherman, et 

al., No. 1:19-cv-00818-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Case 1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK Document 3 Filed 01/27/20 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

Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with 

the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 

and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK Document 3 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3