Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00797/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00797-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY BLACKMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00797-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 

THE $400 FILING FEE WITHIN 

TWENTY-ONE DAYS OF THIS ORDER 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

THAT FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE 

RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS 

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

(ECF Nos. 1 & 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 6, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis in this case. (ECF No. 2.) 

As yet, Plaintiff has neither consented to nor denied Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. No other parties have appeared.

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a 

Case 1:16-cv-00797-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 06/14/16 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

prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the 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.” 

Plaintiff has brought more than three actions that were dismissed for being 

frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim.1 The only question remaining is 

whether Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The imminent danger exception applies if “the complaint makes a plausible 

allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time 

of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit 

interprets “imminent danger” to mean “ongoing danger,” meaning the prisoner must 

allege that prison officials have continued with a practice that has injured him or others 

similarly situated in the past. Id. at 1056-57. 

A prisoner seeking to invoke the imminent danger exception in § 1915(g) must 

make specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm. McNeil 

v. U.S., 2006 WL 581081 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 8, 2006) (citing Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 

1125, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2001), and White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir.

1998)). Vague, speculative, and non-specific allegations are insufficient. See Pauline v. 

Mishner, 2009 WL 1505672 (D. Haw. May 28, 2009) (plaintiff's vague and conclusory 

allegations of possible future harm to himself or others are insufficient to trigger the 

“imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to dismissal under § 1915(g)); 

Cooper v. Bush, 2006 WL 2054090 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2006) (plaintiff's allegations that 

 

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Blackman v. Spalding, 

case number 1:16-cv-00115-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on January 27, 2016); Blackman v. Taxdahl, 

case number 1:04-cv-06389-AWI-LJO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 18, 2007, for failure to state a 

claim); Blackman v. Evans, case number 1:06-cv-00081-GSA (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on Feb 3, 2009, for 

failure to state a claim); and Blackman v. Medina, case number 3:05-cv-05390-SI (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed 

on Mar. 13, 2006, and for failure to state a claim); see also Blackman v. Hedgpath, case number 1:10-cv01393-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal) (Aug. 11, 2010, order designating plaintiff a three strikes litigant for purposes 

of section 1915(g).) 

Case 1:16-cv-00797-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 06/14/16 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

he will commit suicide, or that he has already attempted suicide and will do so again, 

are insufficient to show imminent danger); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F.Supp.2d 1074, 

1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (“[p]laintiff's vague allegation of a conspiracy among the 

defendants to beat, assault, injure, harass and retaliate against him are not enough. 

These allegations are insufficient and lack the specificity necessary to show an 

imminent threat of serious physical injury.”). 

Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds it does not involve 

imminent danger of serious physical injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the 

processing and/or handling of his inmate appeals.

Plaintiff is therefore is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action is 

DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff is directed to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one (21) 

days of service of this order; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full by the above deadline, all 

pending motions be terminated and the action be dismissed without prejudice.

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)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) 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 reply to the objections shall be served 

and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

Case 1:16-cv-00797-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 06/14/16 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

rights on appeal. Wilkerson 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: June 13, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00797-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 06/14/16 Page 4 of 4