Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01438-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS LEON LINTHECOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA ALFARO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:14-cv-01438-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DENY MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL 

WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

(ECF No. 7)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 7.)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring 

a civil action . . . 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01438-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 04/02/15 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

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). Plaintiff has had three or more 

actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which 

relief maybe granted.1To meet the imminent danger exception, the complaint must 

plausibly allege “that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at 

the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s complaint is a lengthy, single-spaced, confusing narrative of various 

events interspersed with exhibits that purportedly support Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff 

alleges in a conclusory fashion that Hispanics attempted to kill him when he was 

previously housed at North Kern State Prison – Delano (“NKSP”) in 2011. He also 

alleges previously serving time at Los Angeles County Jail where inmates attempted to 

break into his cell through the cement flooring to kill him. Plaintiff also states that he is “a 

target for murder by Hispanics due to a forward, text, message they sent of [him] in their 

error of the unspeakable accusations” and that “currently recent attempts on [his] life 

[are] still an issue like in 2011.” (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) 

It appears from these statements that Plaintiff believed his life to be in danger at 

the time he filed his complaint. However, Plaintiff’s substantive allegations in the 

complaint (interference with mail and telephone usage, medical indifference, due 

process violations during the prison appeal process, retaliatory and discriminatory 

conduct by prison officials, and a miscalculation of his credits for sentencing purposes) 

are wholly unrelated to these allegations of danger by inmates who are not named as 

defendants in this action. These vague,conclusory statements without specific factual 

allegations regarding ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern of misconduct 

evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury are insufficient to 

 

1

 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Linthecome v. Miles, 

et al., 2:11-cv-06494-UA-AJW (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed August 23, 2011 as frivolous; no appeal filed); 

Linthecome v. CDCR Parole Agents, et al., 2:11-cv-05708-UA-AJW (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed July 28, 2011 

for failure to state a claim and as frivolous; no appeal filed); and Linthecome v. Unknown, 2:11-cv-04184-

UA-AJW (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed June 28, 2011 as frivolous or malicious; no appeal filed). These strikes 

were final prior to the date Plaintiff filed this action. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Case 1:14-cv-01438-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 04/02/15 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

demonstrate imminent danger. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1057, n.11 (“assertions of 

imminent danger of less obviously injurious practices may be rejected as overly 

speculative or fanciful, when they are supported by implausible or untrue allegations that 

the ongoing practice has produced past harm”) (citing Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 

331 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Courts . . . deny leave to proceed IFP when a prisoner's claims of 

imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous.”); Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 

(8th Cir. 2003) (refusing to find “imminent danger” based on “conclusory assertions that 

defendants were trying to kill [the inmate] by forcing him to work in extreme [weather] 

conditions despite his blood pressure condition”)).

The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application should be 

denied because he accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent danger of 

serious physical harm at the time this action was initiated. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff 

should be provided with the opportunity to pay the filing fee in full or to amend his 

complaint to allege specific factual allegations which would support a finding of imminent 

danger.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 7) be DENIED,

2. Plaintiff should be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twentyone days of adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, and

3. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of 

adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, all pending motions should be 

terminated and this action dismissed without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 

any party 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.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

Case 1:14-cv-01438-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 04/02/15 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01438-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 04/02/15 Page 4 of 4