Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01778/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01778-4/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

ERNEST LEE COX, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VASUKI DARAM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP (PC)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 

seeking relief under 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 July 14, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations 

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 

days. (ECF No. 29.) Defendants have filed objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations. (ECF No. 30.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 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 by proper analysis.

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 09/26/23 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

Defendants’ initial motion (ECF No. 22) and their subsequent objections (ECF 

No. 30) argue that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked as Plaintiff has 

accrued three strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Plaintiff is not 

presently at imminent danger. The Magistrate Judge determined that while Plaintiff 

had accrued three strikes, the imminent danger exception applied based on the 

imminent danger that existed at the time Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No. 29 at 3.) 

In their objections, Defendants argue that though there may have been an imminent 

danger at the time Plaintiff filed the motion, the exception should not apply because 

he had since been transferred to a different institution and was no longer in danger. 

(ECF No. 30 at 2–3.)

The Ninth Circuit in Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)

determined that “the availability of the [imminent danger] exception turns on the 

conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or 

later time.” (emphasis added). In doing so the court stated that “[plaintiff’s] removal 

from the California prison system after filing the complaint is therefore irrelevant to 

our § 1915(g) analysis.” Id. Additionally, following its ruling in Andrews, Ninth Circuit 

issued an unpublished decision, Jensen v. Knowles, 250 Fed. Appx. 782 (9th Cir. 

2007), in which the Court reversed and remanded a district court decision that the 

imminent danger exception did not apply as the plaintiff in question had since been 

moved to a different institution. The Ninth Circuit directed the district court to 

reconsider whether the imminent danger exception applied in light of the Andrews

decision. Jensen, 250 Fed. Appx. at 783.

Given these decisions, the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations

recommending that Defendants’ motion be denied as an imminent danger existed at 

the time of filing is well founded. Pursuant to Andrews, the imminent danger 

exception must be applied based on the conditions that existed at the time Plaintiff 

brought the present action. 493 F.3d at 1053. Plaintiff’s subsequent transfer to 

another institution after bringing this action has no bearing on this determination.

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 09/26/23 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 14, 2023 (ECF No. 29) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 

22) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2023 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC1 – cox21cv1778.jo

Case 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP Document 31 Filed 09/26/23 Page 3 of 3