Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01772/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01772-1/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 

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 

TONY BLACKMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

K. LAVALLEUR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1772 GEB AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner at High Desert State Prison who proceeds pro se in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor 

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Court records reveal that plaintiff is a 

designated “three-strikes litigant” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Blackman v. Stainer, Case No. 

2:14-cv-2958 KJM KJN P, Order and Findings and Recommendations filed February 24, 2015 

(ECF No. 9); adopted by Order filed June 29, 2015 (ECF No. 13) (designating plaintiff a “threestrikes litigant”). 

As a result, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless 

his complaint demonstrates that he was under “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the 

time he filed the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th 

Cir. 2007). This court is required to assess the relevant circumstances and conditions at the time 

the complaint was filed, to determine “whether the complaint, as a whole, alleges imminent 

Case 2:15-cv-01772-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 09/23/15 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

danger of serious physical injury.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053 (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). The danger must be ongoing to meet the imminence requirement. Id. at 1056. 

“[A] prisoner who alleges that prison officials continue with a practice that has injured him or 

others similarly situated in the past will satisfy the ‘ongoing danger’ standard and meet the 

imminence prong of the three-strikes exception.” Id. at 1056-57. Allegations that are overly 

speculative or fanciful may be rejected. Id. at 1057 n.11. The alleged imminent danger must be 

real and proximate. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). 

 For the reasons explained below, the court finds that the instant complaint does not 

demonstrate that plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the 

complaint. The complaint therefore does not support an exception to application of Section 

1915(g). To proceed in this action, plaintiff must pay the required filing fee of $350.00 plus the 

$50.00 administrative fee.1

 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). 

The complaint, which names more than 75 defendants, alleges denial of plaintiff’s First 

Amendment rights to utilize the prison grievance system. Plaintiff alleges that his grievances are 

routinely and improperly rejected or cancelled, thus precluding him from exhausting his 

administrative remedies,2 and that plaintiff is thus denied access to the courts and to the prison 

law library. Although the complaint alleges that plaintiff is the subject of “discrimination hate 

crimes” by prison employees, and describes plaintiff’s “extreme fear,” these statements do not 

reflect imminent danger of serious physical injury because they are contained in virtually 

incomprehensible allegations. The following examples support the court’s conclusion, ECF No. 1 

at 4 (sic): 

[Defendants are] wrongfully rejecting and canceling plaintiff[’s] 

Appeal Grievance complaints to stop plaintiff from (Talking) using 

state issue appeal complaints paper so plaintiff can’t request for 

(Protection) to stop state prisoner employees from subjecting 

plaintiff to unjustified deprivation due to discrimination hate 

crimes. . . . 

White prison employee [] using unlawful influence to “Obstruct 

Justice” in state and federal court (Appeals) and telling other[] 

 

1

 Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not required to pay the $50.00 administrative fee. 

2

 Court records indicate that plaintiff has filed nearly 50 civil complaints in this court since 2005. 

Case 2:15-cv-01772-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 09/23/15 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

prisoners that plaintiff keep filing appeals because he [is] in 

extreme fear but plaintiff can’t have NO! white inmate [] or 

Mexican inmate [] or black inmate [] as his (Cell-Mate) out of 

“Extreme Fear” of plaintiff having witnesses in his weight division 

height 5/4 weight 160 to 165 to be witness to prison employees 

discrimination hate crimes behind state prison close door’s due to 

prison employees making terrorist threats with a weapon of pepper 

spray to suffocate plaintiff to confiscate plaintiff[’s] personal 

property for involuntary transfer due to plaintiff not having a 

private lawyer with (Power) to get a court order to enforce 

plaintiff[’s] First Amendment rights to exhaust plaintiff[’s] 

administrative remedy on appeal . . . . 

These examples illustrate the failure of the complaint to demonstrate that plaintiff was in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. Because the complaint 

fails to demonstrate an exception to application of the three-strikes rule set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g), plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action but must submit the required 

fees totaling $400.00 as a precondition to proceeding herein. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff shall, within thirty days after the filing date of this order, submit $400.00 to 

the Clerk of Court to commence this action and obtain review of his complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A. 

 2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: September 22, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01772-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3