Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00627/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00627-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Monica J. Quiroga, III is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 30, 2020, this action was transferred from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is pending review. 

(ECF No. 4.) 

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

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). 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g) provides that: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the 

MONICO J. QUIROGA, III.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GANG & NARCOTICS TASK FORCES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00627-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. 4]

Case 1:20-cv-00627-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 4
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

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.” Therefore, if a prisoner has incurred three or more 

“strikes” (i.e., three or more cases that were dismissed on the grounds that the cases were frivolous, 

malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted) before filing a new civil action, 

the prisoner is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in the new civil action unless the 

complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical 

injury” at the time the complaint was filed. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 

2007); see Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining that, to qualify for the 

imminent danger exception under § 1915(g), an inmate must provide “specific fact allegations of 

ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent 

serious physical injury[]”). 

II.

DISCUSSION

Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff has incurred three or more “strikes” under § 1915(g) 

prior to filing the instant civil action. The Court take judicial notice of the following United States 

District Court cases1: (1) Quiroga v. Aguilar, et al., No. 1:15-cv-01202-LJO-MSJ (E.D. Cal.) 

(dismissed on August 18, 2016, for failure to state a claim); (2) Quiroga v. Food Services, No. 1:15-

cv-01203-EPG (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on August 23, 2016, for failure to state a claim); (3) Quiroga v. 

Youngblood, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00002-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on October 31, 2017, for 

failure to state a claim); and (4) Quiroga v. Youngblood, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00859-DAD-SKO (E.D. 

Cal.) (dismissed on January 31, 2019, as frivolous and failure to pay filing fee). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied unless his complaint makes a plausible 

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of these cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2). See United States v. 

Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007); Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005); 

U.S. el rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 1:20-cv-00627-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 4
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

allegation that he faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he filed his 

complaint on January 14, 2020. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-56. 

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges in incoherent terms that he is being invaded by some type of 

technology by various individuals and/or agencies. Plaintiff has clearly not pled any allegations 

demonstrating that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time Plaintiff filed his 

complaint. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57; see White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 

1998) (stating that “vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of harm are insufficient to establish 

imminent danger of serious physical harm under § 1915(g)). Therefore, since Plaintiff has not 

satisfied the imminent danger exception to three-strikes rule of § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, Plaintiff 

must pre-pay the $400.00 filing fee in full.

III.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 

Fresno District Judge to this action.

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 4), be DENIED, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this 

action.

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 twenty-one (21)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson 

Case 1:20-cv-00627-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 4
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

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 

1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00627-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 05/04/20 Page 4 of 4