Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00042-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARL KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM OGLESBY, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:25-cv-00042-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF PAY THE 

FILING FEE FOR THIS ACTION

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) The action was 

transferred to this Court on January 8, 2025. Plaintiff has not submitted an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or paid the $405.00 filing fee for this action. 

However, a review of the Court’s electronic filing system reflects that Plaintiff has suffered three 

of more strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and is not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis unless 

he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing the complaint. 

///

///

///

Case 1:25-cv-00042-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 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

I.

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted “to curb frivolous 

prisoner complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 

2011). Pursuant to the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statue was amended to include section 

1915(g), a non-merits related screening device which precludes prisoners with three or more 

“strikes” from proceeding in forma pauperis unless they are under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 

2007). The statute 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

A review of the actions filed by Plaintiff reveals that he is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff, was, at the time the 

complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court takes judicial 

notice1of the following United States District Court cases: (1) (1) Kelly v. Youngblood, No. 

2:04-cv-2462-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2004) (dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies clear from the face of complaint); (2) Kelly v. Gyorkey, No. 2:11- cv2142-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); (3) Kelly v. Elit, 

No. 1:18-cv-0019-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); 

(4) Kelly v. Islam, No. 1:18-cv-0018-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2018) (dismissed for failure to 

prosecute, following a screening order dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim).2

The issue now becomes whether Plaintiff has met the imminent danger exception, which 

requires Plaintiff to show that he is under (1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and 

1

Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 634 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 

1978). 

2 See also Kelly v. Jones, No. 2:24-cv-02462-KJM-JDP (PC) (denying in forma pauperis status based on three-strikes 

under section 1915(g). 

Case 1:25-cv-00042-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 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

which turns on the conditions he faced at the time he filed his complaint on October 24, 2024 

(with application of the mailbox rule). Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-1056. Conditions which 

posed imminent danger to Plaintiff at some earlier time are immaterial, as are any subsequent 

conditions. Id. at 1053. While the injury is merely procedural rather than a merits-based review 

of the claims, the allegations of imminent danger must still be plausible. Id. at 1055. 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time of filing. In the instant complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was 

sexually harassed by a California Health Care Facility officer and when he was transferred to 

Kern Valley State Prison he did not feel safe around another individual who he had prior issues of 

sexual harassment. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has alleged no facts that he suffered physical injury, 

let alone factual allegations to establish that he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical 

injury’ at the time of filing.” See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for 

IFP complaints which “make[ ] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of 

serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”); see also, Winfield v. Schwarzenegger, No. 2:09–

cv–0636–KJN–P, 2010 WL 3397397, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010) (“At the time of filing the 

operative ... complaint, plaintiff was incarcerated at [CSP–Sacramento]; thus, he is not facing 

imminent danger of serious physical injury based on allegations against defendant ... at San 

Quentin State Prison.”). Therefore, Plaintiff does not establish an exception to the three-strikes 

rule of § 1915(g), and he is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis and must pay the filing 

fee for this action to proceed. 

II.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this action.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff 

not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and instead be directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee 

in full if he wishes to proceed with this action.

///

Case 1:25-cv-00042-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 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

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages, including exhibits. 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. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:25-cv-00042-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4