Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02403/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02403-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD EARL GEORGE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZUNIGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-2403 KJM AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. Three Strikes Analysis 

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF Nos. 

2, 7. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States to 

authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person 

who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a 

judgement in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more 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. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 2:19-cv-02403-KJM-AC Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 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 

The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded from bringing a 

civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three frivolous actions 

and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 

1178 (9th Cir. 1999). “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in forma pauperis] 

status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant 

information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, 

malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

“[W]hen a district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds that [the 

claim] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ such a 

complaint is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such dismissal 

as denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” 

O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original). Dismissal 

also counts as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the 

ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then 

fails to file an amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or without 

prejudice. Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2017). 

 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff in this court has led to the identification of at 

least four cases brought by plaintiff that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the 

following lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1

1. George v. Chapa, E.D. Cal. No. 1:12-cv-1788 GSA (complaint dismissed with leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on March 31, 2014, for failure to file 

an amended complaint); 

2. George v. Stebbino, E.D. Cal. No. 1:13-cv-0052 BAM (complaint dismissed with 

leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on March 25, 2014, for 

 

1

 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 

judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex 

rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court 

may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 

Case 2:19-cv-02403-KJM-AC Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 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 

failure to file an amended complaint); 

3. George v. Lopez, E.D. Cal. No. 1:13-cv-0055 DLB (complaint dismissed with leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on June 18, 2014, for failure to file 

an amended complaint); 

4. George v. Stebbino, E.D. Cal. No. 1:16-cv-1397 SAB (complaint dismissed without 

leave to amend for failure to state a claim on May 11, 2017). 

All of the preceding cases were dismissed well in advance of the November 26, 2019 

filing of the instant action and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, this court 

finds that plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must 

have alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 

2007) (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for 

purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”); see also, Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 

239 F.3d 307, 312-14 (3rd Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 

1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 

885 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The complaint alleges that on June 12, 2019, defendants denied him breakfast and lunch. 

ECF No. 1 at 3-4. These allegations do not demonstrate an imminent risk of serious physical 

injury at the time of filing, and the undersigned will therefore recommend that plaintiff be 

required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint dismissed. 

II. Motion for Extension of Time 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file his notice regarding magistrate 

judge jurisdiction along with the required notice. ECF Nos. 8, 9. Good cause appearing, the 

motion will be granted and the notice regarding magistrate judge jurisdiction is deemed timely. 

III. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis 

status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

Case 2:19-cv-02403-KJM-AC Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 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 

the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury and so it is being recommended that your motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis be denied and you be required to pay the whole filing fee at one time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, 

ECF No. 8, is granted and plaintiff’s notice regarding magistrate judge jurisdiction is deemed 

timely. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis 

(ECF Nos. 2, 7) be denied and plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $400.00 in required fees 

within thirty days or face dismissal of the case. 

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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 15, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-02403-KJM-AC Document 12 Filed 01/16/20 Page 4 of 4