Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01067-2/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

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-1067 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 28, 2016, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on grounds that plaintiff had three prior actions dismissed 

which qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 24.) 

In the findings and recommendations, the undersigned also found that plaintiff did not 

meet the imminent injury exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g):

Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to understand. However, it appears 

that plaintiff alleges that prison officials have failed to treat him for 

lower back problems. Plaintiff appears to allege that he suffered 

these back problems as long ago as 1985. Plaintiff raised similar, if 

not the same claims, in Sierra v. Moon, 1:11-cv-1214 LJO MJS 

(PC). In that action, plaintiff alleged that defendants planned to 

move him from an acute care hospital housing unit to a housing unit 

with a lower level of care and failed to diagnose his alleged 

paraplegia as other than a faked disability. (See 1:11-cv-1214 LJO 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 09/01/16 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

MJS (PC) at ECF No. 16 at 2.) In 1:11-cv-1214 LJO MJS (PC), 

plaintiff also claimed that he suffered from paraplegia from injuries, 

possibly sustained in 1982, leaving him with a painful nerve 

disorder unnoticed by defendants who wrongly accused him of 

having an acute mental disorder. (Id. at 3.)

The district court in 1:11-cv-1214 LJO MJS (PC), found that 

plaintiff’s claims alleging an untreated back injury were frivolous 

because they were combined with patently frivolous claims alleging 

plaintiff’s legal ownership of Nike business worldwide, etc. (Id. at 

3-5.) While plaintiff’s instant complaint does not include other 

patently frivolous claims, the fact that plaintiff raised the same 

claims regarding his alleged back problems in 1:11-cv-1214 LJO 

MJS (PC) indicates that plaintiff is not in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. For these reasons, the undersigned finds 

that plaintiff has not met the imminent danger exception to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(Id. at 2-3.)

On August 23, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF 

No. 26.) Attached as an exhibit to the objections is a form titled “Disability Placement Program 

Verification.” (Id. at 65.) This document indicates that plaintiff is allowed an “intermittent 

wheelchair,” meaning he may use it outside of his cell only. (Id.) Plaintiff has written on this 

document that Correctional Officer Walker handed him this document on April 13, 2016. (Id.) 

Thus, it appears that plaintiff may have been allowed to use the wheelchair in his cell prior to 

April 13, 2016. 

A claim by plaintiff challenging the denial of a wheelchair for in-cell use may meet the 

imminent injury exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) if plaintiff is able to allege that he suffers a 

serious risk of harm, or has suffered serious harm, as a result of not being able to use his 

wheelchair in his cell. For this reason, the July 28, 2016 findings and recommendations are 

vacated and plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint raising his claim alleging 

denial of access to a wheelchair for in-cell use. The amended complaint must name as defendants 

those prison officials responsible for allegedly restricting his use of a wheelchair to out-of-cell 

only. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint should contain a short and plain 

statement of his claims, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In other words, the 

amended complaint may not include claims unrelated to the claim regarding plaintiff’s use of the 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 09/01/16 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

wheelchair in his cell, i.e., claims unrelated to his claim alleging an imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. If the amended complaint does not allege an imminent danger of serious physical 

injury, the undersigned will again recommend that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The July 28, 2016 findings and recommendations are vacated;

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of this order to file an amended 

complaint; if plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the July 28, 2016 findings and 

recommendations will be reinstated;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights complaint 

by a prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Dated: September 1, 2016

Ser1067.vac

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 28 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3