Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01567-12/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SAUNDERS, 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. (Doc. 33.)

MATTHEW CATE, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION

(Doc. 30.)

Defendants. ORDER DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT

_____________________________/

Jason Saunders (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

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. 

On August 24, 2011, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of this action, filed on April 23, 2010, be denied. (Doc.

33.) On October 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc.

38.) 

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,

1

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 39 Filed 12/23/11 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

including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by

the record and proper analysis. As explained in full detail in prior orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

provides that a prisoner with three strikes cannot bring a civil action and proceed in forma pauperis

“unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff’s complaint was ultimately dismissed because Plaintiff was found to be three strikes and did

not pay the filing fee. Plaintiff complains that he should have been given the oppertunity to file an

Second Amended Complaint that would have alleged would have alleged facts falling within the

“imminent danger” exception. The imminent danger exception only applies if the complaint makes

a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time

of filing. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9 Cir. 2007); Ransom v. Johnson, 2010 WL th

4137180, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2010). Thus, what Plaintiff might have been able to allege if given further

leave to amend is not relevant to the court’s finding that Plaintiff had three strikes and his allegations

did not fall within the imminent danger exception.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

August 24, 2011, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of this action, filed on April 23,

2010, is DENIED; and

3. All other motions pending in this action are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 23, 2011 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 39 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 2