Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02866/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02866-0/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 

RICHARD JOSE DUPREE, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARACK OBAMA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2866-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS1

Plaintiff Richard Dupree is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). However, as explained below, he has not demonstrated that 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 

serious physical injury. 

 1

 Plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order directing him to complete and return the 

form indicating either his consent to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge or request for 

reassignment to a district judge. Accordingly, the clerk will be directed to randomly assign this 

case to a district judge. 

Case 2:14-cv-02866-TLN-EFB Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 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

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. See (1) Dupree v. United States District Court, 

No. 2:11-cv- 0263-DAD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011) (order dismissing action as frivolous); (2) 

Dupree v. Santiago, No. 2:11-cv-309-EFB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011) (order dismissing action for 

failure to state a claim); (3) Dupree v. Mills, 2:11-cv-01619-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012) 

(order dismissing action for failure to state a claim); and (4) Dupree v. U.S. Copyright Office, 

2:11-cv-01700-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2011) (order dismissing action as frivolous and for 

failure to state a claim; also designating plaintiff as a three strikes litigant for purposes of § 

1915(g)). 

 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). Here, plaintiff’s 

allegations do not demonstrate that he suffered from imminent danger of serious physical injury 

at the time he filed his complaint. Thus, the imminent danger exception does not apply. Because 

plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis, this action 

must be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be randomly assigned to a United 

States District Judge. 

 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and 

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the $400 

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, 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.” Failure to file objections 

Case 2:14-cv-02866-TLN-EFB Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 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

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: April 23, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02866-TLN-EFB Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3