Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00499/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00499-1/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

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 2)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action in the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of California on March 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) The action was 

then transferred to this court on April 6, 2016. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis in this case.

However, plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this 

section if the prisoner has, on three 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.

As the undersigned noted recently in a separate action filed by this same prisoner plaintiff,

plaintiff has suffered at least three dismissals qualifying as strikes under § 1915(g) prior to his 

Case 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB Document 7 Filed 05/04/16 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

filing of this action. See Pierce v. Mims, 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT, Doc. No. 6 at 2, n.2 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases brought by this plaintiff which have previously been 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious and/or for failure to state a claim). As such, since plaintiff 

seeks in forma pauperis status under § 1915, he may not receive it unless he can demonstrate the 

imminent danger requirement of § 1915(g). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that his allegations do not satisfy 

the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055–56 (9th 

Cir. 2007). The determination of whether plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury is made based on the conditions at the time the complaint is filed, and the allegation of 

imminent danger must be plausible. Id. at 1053–55.

Plaintiff titles this action as a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act for 

medical fraud. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) The allegations of his complaint are somewhat nonsensical: he

contends that Magistrate Judge Thurston received medical data “as private medical information of 

a shot for pain.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff references a second shot for pain, and then states that 

“no shot for pain exist to be provided by the California Department of Corrections.” (Doc. No. 1 

at 2.) It appears plaintiff’s claim may relate to another action, though he does not refer or cite to

any other action brought by him. In any event, plaintiff’s allegations do not appear to be related 

to current events, and do not even suggest the existence of an imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to allege imminent danger of serious 

physical injury necessary to bypass § 1915(g)’s restriction on his filing suit without prepayment 

of the filing fee.

Accordingly, plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis, and must submit the 

appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action. Therefore, this action is hereby 

dismissed without prejudice, subject to plaintiff’s refiling of his complaint with the submission of 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB Document 7 Filed 05/04/16 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

the $400.00 filing fee in full. This order terminates this action in its entirety and the Clerk of the 

Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00499-DAD-DLB Document 7 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3