Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01871/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01871-0/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

EDDIE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. CURLISS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01871 JLT (PC)

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING 

FEE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis, given that he has been 

determined to have filed at least three cases in the past that failed to state a claim. Thus, the 

Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 14 days.

I. Background

II. Eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis

A prisoner may commence and proceed with an action in federal court without 

prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915, however, contains an explicit

limitation. Known as the “there strikes rule,” § 1915(g) 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.

Case 1:12-cv-01871-LJO-JLT Document 2 Filed 12/12/12 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

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

court must conduct a “careful examination of the order dismissing the action” in order to verify 

that, in fact, “the action was dismissed because it was “frivolous, malicious or failed to state a 

claim.” (Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Here, the Court takes judicial notice that at least three of Plaintiff’s lawsuits have been 

dismissed as frivolous for failure to state a claim1and several others have been dismissed due to 

his failure to pay the filing fee after having been determined ineligible to proceed in forma 

pauperis.2 Thus, because Plaintiff has accumulated “three strikes” against him, he may only 

proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915 only if he is in imminent danger of serious physical 

injury at the time he brought the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The “imminent danger” exception to the three-strikes rule, requires 

the Court to examine the complaint to determine whether it demonstrates Plaintiff is at imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. Id. After a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court is 

convinced that he is not.

Plaintiff asserts in his complaint that on November 16, 2011, he was subject to retaliation 

for submitting prison grievances. (Doc. 1 at 4) Plaintiff contends that this retaliation was in the 

form of having his property confiscated and destroyed. Id. Also, he asserts that on the same date, 

he suffered injuries as a result of Defendants’ use of excessive force and the use of pepper spray. 

Id. at 5. On that same day, Plaintiff contends he was denied medical care for these injuries and, 

as a result of the use of the pepper spray, he suffers from a “skin problem” that has not been 

adequately treated. Id. at 6. 

Having been through this process a number of times before, Plaintiff is aware that in order 

 

1

1) Young v. Briddle, et al., 3:98-cv-00714-SI at Doc. 5 (N.D. Cal June 5, 1998) (failure to state a claim); 2) Young 

v. McCargar, et al., 2:00-cv-02393-GEB-DAD at Doc. 25, Doc. 33 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002) (failure to state a 

claim); and 3) Young v. Bowen, et al., No. 2:01-cv-06368-DSF-MLG at Doc. 213 (C.D. Cal. July. 12, 2007) (failure 

to state a claim).

Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. 

Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981).

2

See also Young v. Riley, et al., 2:02-cv-02297-LKK -DAD at Doc. 53, Doc. 58 (three strike dismissal March 29, 2005); Young 

v. Holguin, et al., 1:06-cv-00770-LJO-DLB at Doc. 18, Doc. 25 (three strike dismissal April 14, 2008); Young v. Parks, et al., 

2:09-cv-00336-GEB-GGH at Doc. 15, Doc. 19 (three strike dismissal April 7, 2011).

Case 1:12-cv-01871-LJO-JLT Document 2 Filed 12/12/12 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

for the Court to allow his lawsuit to move forward without the payment of fees, there must be a 

demonstration of imminent harm. Thus, several times in his complaint, Plaintiff concludes he is 

at risk of imminent harm. Notably, however, other than the ongoing impacts caused by his skin 

problem, he does not allege that there have been any other events in the year since the date in 

question which support his conclusion of imminent danger nor any showing of a threat of future 

harm. Even assuming as true that Plaintiff could still be suffering the effects of pepper spray used 

on him a year ago, the fact that he is not being provided adequate medical treatment for this skin 

problem falls well short of demonstrating he is at imminent danger of physical injury. The Court 

does not find that the failure to treat a chronic medical condition could never constitute imminent 

harm but does find that Plaintiff’s lasting skin problem does not place Plaintiff in imminent 

danger of physical injury.

Because Plaintiff has accumulated “three strikes” under § 1915(g) and was not in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he brought this action, Plaintiff is barred 

from proceeding in forma pauperis in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because Plaintiff has 

not paid the filing fee, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full before proceeding 

with this litigation. 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full within 

14 days of service of this order; 

Plaintiff is advised that his failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in a 

recommendation that his lawsuit be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-01871-LJO-JLT Document 2 Filed 12/12/12 Page 3 of 3