Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01778/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01778-3/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

ERNEST LEE COX, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VASUKI DARAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

status on the ground that he is a “three-striker” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 

that he is no longer under “imminent danger” because he has been transferred to another prison. 

ECF No. 22. Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 25. For the reasons explained below, I will 

recommend that defendants’ motion be denied.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 took effect on April 26, 1996. It provides that a 

prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (i.e., may not proceed in forma pauperis) “if the prisoner has, on three or more 

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a 

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 29 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 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

2

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Any dismissal for failure to state a claim, 

whether with or without prejudice, counts as a strike. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 

1724-25 (2020).

Plaintiff initiated this case in September 2021 while housed at Mule Creek State Prison 

(“MCSP”). ECF No. 1. He alleged that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth 

Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act by declining to let 

him use a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine at MCSP. In December 2021, 

plaintiff was transferred to California Men’s Colony (“CMC”), from which he then filed an 

amended complaint in May 2022 asserting the same allegations regarding the defendants’ denial 

of the CPAP machine. ECF Nos. 7 & 12. He also noted that he was permitted to use his CPAP 

machine at CMC. ECF No. 12 at 8. 

In their moving papers, defendants argue that the following seven cases qualify as strikes: 

Cox v. Hill, Case No. 1:95-cv-05930-REC-DLB (E.D. Cal.); Bakari v. Hill, Case No. 1:96-cv05293-OWW-DLB (E.D. Cal.); Bakari v. CA Board of Prisons, et al., Case No. 2:96-cv-00129-

DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal.); Bakari v. Jacobs et al., Case No. 2:97-cv-03585-UA (E.D. Cal.); Cox v.

Harris, Case No. 5:03-cv-03961-JW (N.D. Cal.); Cox v. North, Case No. 2:11-cv-01217-GGH 

(E.D. Cal.); Cox v. Daram, Case No. 2:20-cv-01295-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.). ECF No. 22-2 at 2-3. 

They further argue that the imminent danger exception does not apply because plaintiff has since 

been transferred to CMC where he may use a CPAP machine.

Plaintiff denies having incurred any strikes and disputes the factual basis for the dismissal 

orders in each of the cases cited by defendants. See ECF No. 25. He does not address the 

imminent danger exception in his opposition.

Assuming arguendo that plaintiff has incurred three or more strikes before he filed this 

action, the dispositive question is whether he is entitled to the imminent danger exception. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Defendants acknowledge that “[p]laintiff may have been under imminent 

danger of serious physical [injury]” when he initiated this case, but they argue that he is no longer 

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 29 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 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

3

entitled to the exception because he was not housed at MCSP when he filed the operative 

pleading—i.e., the first amended complaint. ECF No. 22-1 at 11. 

Resolution of defendants’ motion turns on when a plaintiff’s claim of imminent danger 

should be evaluated. The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates 

that imminent danger is to be assessed at the time of filing of the original complaint (“In no event 

shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . .” (emphasis added)). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Andrews II”); Bradford v. Usher, Case No. 1:17-cv-01128-DADSAB, 2019 WL 4316899, *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019) (“[I]mminent danger for purposes of § 

1915(g) is to be measured at the time of the commencement of the action.”). Under this 

approach, the conditions that existed at some earlier or later time are not relevant. See Andrews 

II, 493 F.3d at 1053 & n.5 (post-filing transfer of prisoner out of prison at which danger allegedly 

existed may have mooted request for injunctive relief against alleged danger but did not affect 

§ 1915(g) analysis).

Defendants contend that imminent danger should be assessed at the time the operative 

complaint was filed—an approach some courts have taken. See Bradford, 2019 WL 4316899, *4 

(collecting cases). In so arguing, defendants rely on Lamon v. Mey, 2021 WL 2679058 (E.D. Cal. 

June 30, 2021). There, the court granted the defendants’ motion to revoke the plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status after noting that the conduct underlying plaintiff’s claims arose at High Desert 

State Prison (“HDSP”), but plaintiff had already been transferred to MCSP when he initiated the 

case. Id. at *6. According to the court, “[p]laintiff fails to demonstrate how or why he is in 

imminent danger when he is no longer housed in the prison where defendants work.” Id.

Defendants’ reliance on Lamon is misplaced. The court’s finding that the imminent 

danger exception did not apply in that case was premised on the fact that, “[a]t the time plaintiff 

filed the original (and amended) complaint, plaintiff was housed at [MCSP]”—i.e., not the facility 

where the claims arose. Lamon, 2021 WL 2679058, at *6. At no point during that litigation was 

plaintiff housed at HDSP. In contrast, plaintiff here was housed at MCSP when he filed his 

original complaint. At that time, plaintiff alleged that defendants continued to deny him use of 

his CPAP machine. I find that plaintiff “makes a plausible allegation that [he] faced ‘imminent 

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 29 Filed 07/14/23 Page 3 of 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

4

danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” See Andrews II, 493 F.3d at 1055. He 

therefore may rely on the imminent danger exception.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis status, ECF No. 22, be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 29 Filed 07/14/23 Page 4 of 4