Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02694/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02694-1/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. 

SACRAMENTO NEWS AND REVIEW, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2694 JAM KJN P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, in a civil action. 

He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On March 17, 2016, 

plaintiff was directed to pay the appropriate filing fee within 21 days because he had filed three 

prior lawsuits that were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or malicious or failed 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 8.) 

On April 11, 2015, plaintiff filed objections to the order, but did not pay the filing fee. 

For the reasons explained below, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated he is 

eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. 

A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis: 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-02694-JAM-KJN Document 12 Filed 05/19/16 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

serious physical injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Court records reflect that on at least three prior occasions, plaintiff has 

brought actions while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted: 

 (1) Pierce v. California State, CV 12-9211 UA (CW) (C.D. Cal.), November 20, 2012 

(dismissed as frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted) (Id., 

ECF No. 5); 

 (2) Pierce v. Gonzales, 1:10-cv-0285 JLT (E.D. Cal.), December 3, 2012 (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim) (Id., ECF No. 27); 

 (3) Pierce v. Warden of Lancaster, CV 13-1939 UA (CW), March 28, 2013 (dismissed as 

frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted) (Id., ECF No. 2); 

 (4) Pierce v. Gonzales, No. 13-15114 (9th Cir.) (March 28, 2013 order denying motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis on ground that appeal was frivolous, and May 7, 2013 order dismissing 

appeal for failure to prosecute after plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee)1; 

 (5) Pierce v. Lancaster State Prison, 2:13-cv-8126 (C.D. Cal.), December 3, 2013 

(dismissed as frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted) (Id., 

ECF No. 6); 

 (6) Pierce v. Unknown, 1:15-cv-0650 DAD DLB (E.D. Cal.), December 1, 2015 

(dismissed for failure to state a claim) (Id., ECF No. 38); and 

 (7) Pierce v. Birotte, No. 2:15-cv-7552 VAP CW (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2015) (order 

designating plaintiff a three-strikes litigant for purposes of § 1915(g) and listing four additional 

 1

 The dismissal of this appeal, styled as one for failure to prosecute, also qualifies as a 

strike. See O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (complaint is “dismissed” for 

purposes of § 1915(g) even if dismissal is styled as denial of application to file the action without 

prepayment of the full filing fee); see also, e.g., Lamon v. Junious, No. 1:09-cv-00484 AWI SAB, 

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9778, at *9-10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014) (dismissal of appeal for failure to 

prosecute counted as “strike” where underlying ground for dismissal was that appeal was 

frivolous); Thomas v. Beutler, No. 2:10-cv-01300 MCE CKD P, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159943, 

at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) (same, and citing similar cases); Braley v. Wasco State Prison, 

No. 1:07-cv-01423 AWI BAM, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133285 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2012) 

(“Plaintiff became subject to section 1915(g) . . . when the appeal of the dismissal of his third 

action as frivolous was dismissed for failure to prosecute”). 

Case 2:15-cv-02694-JAM-KJN Document 12 Filed 05/19/16 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

“strikes” incurred by plaintiff). 

The section 1915(g) exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that 

the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). For the exception to 

apply, the court must look to the conditions the “prisoner faced at the time the complaint was 

filed, not at some earlier or later time.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1056 (requiring that prisoner 

allege “an ongoing danger” to satisfy the imminence requirement). Courts need “not make an 

overly detailed inquiry into whether the allegations qualify for the exception.” Id. at 1055. 

In the complaint (ECF No. 1), plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that he is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. In addition, plaintiff alleged no facts addressing this 

exception in his April 11, 2016 filing. Thus, the imminent danger exception does not apply. 

Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must therefore be denied pursuant to 

§ 1915(g). 

Accordingly, because plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and cannot proceed in forma 

pauperis, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 11) be denied; and 

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the 

$400.00 filing fee. 

 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 and serve a copy on all parties. 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: May 19, 2016 

/cw/pier2694.1915g.fpf 

Case 2:15-cv-02694-JAM-KJN Document 12 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 3