Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01117/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01117-1/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

MARVIN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. MOSER., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01117-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

(Doc. Nos. 3, 5)

Plaintiff Marvin Harris (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 15, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) 

On August 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiff “not be allowed proceed in forma pauperis in this action,” and that 

he “be directed to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with this action.” (Doc. 

No. 3.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. On August 27, 2019, plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 4.) On September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Doc. No. 5.)

Case 1:19-cv-01117-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Plaintiff objects that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury under the 

American Disabilities Act at the time his complaint in this action was filed. (Doc. No. 4 at 1.) 

Plaintiff reiterates that he is being kept in his cell everyday without yard or dayroom phone calls. 

(Id. at 2.) As the assigned magistrate judge found in the pending findings and recommendations, 

these conclusory allegations do not support an inference that plaintiff was in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. (Doc. No. 3 at 3.) Moreover, plaintiff’s 

objections are merely a recitation of the legal standard governing application of the imminent 

danger exception and they fail to provide any specific factual allegations of physical injury or the 

threat thereof. See Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (“This type of general 

assertion is insufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g) absent specific fact allegations of 

ongoing serious physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of 

imminent serious physical injury.”)

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge on August

19, 2019 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full;

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff cannot be permitted to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this action;

3. Plaintiff’s separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 5) is denied; and

4. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he is required to pay the $400 filing fee in full 

within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01117-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2