Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00970/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00970-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE 

TREATMENT FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00970-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 15)

Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this case be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

a court order, failure to pay the filing fee, and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 15.) The findings 

and recommendation were served on both parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service. (Id.) On December 26, 2019, 

plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

Case 1:19-cv-00970-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 2
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

including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s so–called “three strikes” provision, prisoners may be barred 

from proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if they, “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[.]” In his objections, plaintiff reiterates his belief that he is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury due to the high temperatures inside of the prison in 

which he is currently incarcerated and thus qualifies for the exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(Doc. No. 16.) In support of this argument, plaintiff restates the allegations of his complaint and 

those advanced in his previous objections. (Compare Doc. Nos. 16, with 1, and 13.) The court 

has already considered plaintiff’s arguments in this regard when it considered his initial IFP 

application and concluded that he did not qualify to proceed IFP. (See Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff 

also now alleges further, more recent medical issues, (see Doc. No. 16 at 4–5), but “the 

availability of the 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, 1053–55 (9th Cir. 

2007). For these reasons, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff’s objections are unavailing. 

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 15) issued on December 5, 2019, are 

adopted in full;

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with a

court order, failure to pay the filing fee, and failure to prosecute; 

3. All other pending motions (Doc. No. 4) are denied as moot; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00970-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2