Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01044/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01044-0/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

ERIC C.R. K’NAPP, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS AND REQUIRING 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL 

WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

(ECF No. 3) 

FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed July 8, 

2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 23, 2013, the undersigned issued an order 

granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). This matter is in the 

screening phase. 

For this case and, for the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends 

that Plaintiff’s IFP status be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and that he be required 

to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption of these findings and 

recommendations. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . 

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/12/14 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

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.”128 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

A court may raise the issue of strikes sua sponte. Strope v. Cummings, 653 F.3d 

1271, 1273 (10th Cir. 2011). 

II. ANALYSIS

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs proceedings in forma 

pauperis. A review of Plaintiff’s litigation history reveals that he has filed five actions and 

appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 

Determining whether Plaintiff’s actions count as strikes under § 1915(g) requires the 

Court to conduct a “careful examination of the order dismissing an action, and other

relevant information,” to determine if, in fact, “the action was dismissed because it was 

frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121.

The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases which count as strikes:2(1) 

Knapp v. Knowles, No. 04–16701 (9th Cir. 2005) (appeal dismissed March 7, 2005 as not 

taken in good faith and frivolous)3, (2) Knapp v. Harrison, No. 08–56629 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(appeal dismissed March 5, 2009 as not taken in good faith and frivolous), (3) Knapp v. 

Knowles, No. 2:03–cv–00394 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (action dismissed August 13, 2004 for 

repeated failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and failure to state a claim), (4) Knapp v. 

Knowles, No. 2:06–cv–00453 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (action dismissed June 14, 2007 for 

 

1

“This subdivision is commonly known as the three strikes provision. Strikes are prior cases or appeals,

brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, 

malicious, or failed to state a claim. Pursuant to § 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot 

proceed in forma pauperis. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).

2 United States ex. Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.

1992) (a court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 

system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”).

3 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, IFP appeals may not be taken if the trial court “certifies in writing 

that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a)(3); see Andrews, 398 F.3d 1113 at 1121 (for § 

1915(g) purposes, a case “is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.’ ”).

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/12/14 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

repeated failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and failure to state a claim), (5) Knapp v. 

Harrison, No. 06–cv–07702, 2008 WL 4334683 (C.D. Cal. September 12, 2008) (action 

dismissed September 12, 2008 for repeated failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 

failure to state a claim). The latter three cases were dismissed because Plaintiff, after 

having been given numerous chances to perfect his pleadings, “fail[ed] to state a claim.” 

Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2013), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

These strikes were final before Plaintiff filed this action on July 8, 2013. Moreover, 

Plaintiff does not demonstrate that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

the time he filed his Complaint. To meet the imminent danger exception, the threat or 

prison condition must be real and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th 

Cir. 2003), and the danger of serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is 

filed. Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 562-63 (2d Cir. 2002); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Complaint alleges that during the period July 2008 to present, Plaintiff’s

advocacy and grievance filing on behalf of himself and other prisoners subjected him to a 

policy of retaliation, harassment, indifference, discrimination, oppression and abuse. 

Defendants’ actions, according to Plaintiff, deprived him of rights under the First, Fifth, 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, Plaintiff provides no useful information as to 

the nature and circumstances of the advocacy and grieving he engaged in or as to the 

actions Defendants threatened, took or failed to take. 

Plaintiff provides no factual predicate suggesting acts of retaliation, harassment,

indifference, discrimination, oppression and abuse threatening or causing serious physical 

injury. His allegations are purely conclusory and do not, in any event, suggest a serious 

threat of physical harm. See Ciarpaglini, 352 F.3d at 331(vague and conclusory assertions 

not sufficient to show imminent danger).

Though the imminent danger exception may be satisfied where a danger is alleged 

to be ongoing, see Tierney v. Alo, - - - F.2d - - - -, 2012 WL 622238 at *2 (D. Hawai’i 

February 24, 2012), citing Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056, the Complaint does not demonstrate 

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/12/14 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

any serious physical danger to Plaintiff or others similarly situated and does not meet the 

“ongoing danger” standard and imminence prong of the three-strikes exception. See

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57; Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 2013) 

(specific and credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury are 

required).

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s IFP status should be revoked because he

accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent danger of serious physical harm

at the time this action was initiated, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and Plaintiff should be provided 

with the opportunity to pay the filing fee in full. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 3) should be REVOKED,

2. Plaintiff should 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 should 

be terminated and this action dismissed without prejudice. 

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)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties 

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections 

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/12/14 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

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 02/12/14 Page 5 of 5