Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00561/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00561-1/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

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

A. LEYVAS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00561-EPG (PC)

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED AND 

THAT PLAINTIFF BE REQUIRED TO 

PAY THE $400.00 FILING FEE IN FULL

(ECF No. 2)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

I. BACKGROUND

Rogelio May Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 16, 2020. (ECF No. 1). 

On that same day Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2).

As the Court finds that Plaintiff had at least “three strikes” prior to filing the action and

that Plaintiff was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the 

action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be 

denied and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed 

with the action.

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-00561-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 5
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

II. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides 

that “[i]n no event shall a 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.”

In determining whether a case counts as a “strike,” “the reviewing court looks to the 

dismissing court's action and the reasons underlying it.... This means that the procedural 

mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is not 

dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted). 

See also O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Yourish v. Cal. 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986–87 (9th Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (“no ‘particular 

formalities are necessary for an order that serves as the basis of [an involuntary] dismissal.’”).1

III. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

a. Strikes

Plaintiff initiated this action on April 16, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The Court finds that, 

prior to this date, Plaintiff had at least four cases dismissed that count as “strikes.” The Court 

takes judicial notice of: 

1. Ruiz v. McGuire, S.D. Cal. No. 3:16-cv-0388 AJB BLM (complaint dismissed 

with leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on May 9, 2016, 

for failure to file an amended complaint); 

2. Ruiz v. Curry, E.D. Cal. No. 1:17-cv-1454 DAD SAB (case dismissed for failure 

to state a claim on May 30, 2018);

 

1

If an application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as frivolous by an appellate court, the case 

counts as a “strike” even if the appeal is not dismissed until later when the plaintiff fails to pay the filing 

fee. Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015).

Case 1:20-cv-00561-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 5
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. Ruiz v. Curry, E.D. Cal. No. 1:17-cv-1407-DAD-SKO (case dismissed for 

failure to state a claim on February 25, 2019); and

4. Ruiz v. Curry, 9th Cir. No. 19-16456 (appeal of Ruiz v. Curry, E.D. Cal. No.

1:17-cv-1407, dismissed as frivolous on November 22, 2019).

b. Imminent Danger

As Plaintiff had at least “three strikes” prior to filing this action, Plaintiff is precluded

from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was filed, in

imminent danger of serious physical injury. The availability of the imminent danger exception 

“turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier 

or later time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). “Imminent danger 

of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or

hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, 2016 WL 5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To 

meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing 

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

serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague 

and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 

F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998). See also Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050 (“[C]onclusory 

assertions” are “insufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g)....”). The “imminent danger” 

exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat ... is 

real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Additionally, “the complaint of a three-strikes litigant must reveal a nexus between the 

imminent danger it alleges and the claims it asserts, in order for the litigant to qualify for the 

‘imminent danger’ exception of § 1915(g). In deciding whether such a nexus exists, we will 

consider (1) whether the imminent danger of serious physical injury that a three-strikes litigant 

alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a 

favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury. The three-strikes litigant must meet both 

requirements in order to proceed [in forma pauperis].” Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 

Case 1:20-cv-00561-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 5
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

WL 5255377, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) (quoting Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 

298–99 (2d Cir. 2009)).

Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger determination the Court 

must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (9th Cir. 2007).

Nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint suggests that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. Plaintiff alleges that several times, Defendants rejected or canceled 

complaints, or appeals of complaints, Plaintiff made within the prison system. (ECF No. 1, pp. 

3-5). However, there is no indication that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical 

injury due to Defendants rejecting his appeal.

As Plaintiff is a “three-striker” and does not appear to have been in imminent danger 

when he filed this action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis be denied and that Plaintiff be directed to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full if he

wants to proceed with this action.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court finds that under § 1915(g) Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this 

action.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff=s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full if he wants 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 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Case 1:20-cv-00561-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/21/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 

judge to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00561-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/21/20 Page 5 of 5