Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

DAVID WAYNE WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LURA MERRITT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REVOKE 

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS

(Doc. 70)

Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s surreply be stricken and defendants’ 

motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status be denied. (Doc. 70.) The magistrate 

judge advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

waiver of his rights on appeal.” (Id. at 15, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th

Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). Defendants filed their 

objections on August 30, 2024. (Doc. 71.) 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including defendants’ objections, the Court 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 10/29/24 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

concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Among other things, as the magistrate judge explained, despite Plaintiff having three prior 

“strikes” under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s initial IFP application was granted based upon 

allegations of imminent danger contained in his initial complaint. (Doc. 70 at 10.) The Defense 

contends that Plaintiff’s IFP status must be revoked because the imminent danger allegations 

were related to a claim that was later dismissed. (See generally Doc. 71.) However, the magistrate 

judge correctly concluded that imminent danger for purposes of § 1915(g) is evaluated at the 

commencement of the action and the Court need not reexamine the issue subsequently. (Id.) The 

cases cited by the defense, including Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2022) (requiring “a 

nexus between the alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the prisoner’s 

complaint” and explaining that to find a nexus, a court must determine “(1) whether the imminent 

danger of serious physical injury that a three-strikes litigant alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful 

conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a favorable judicial outcome would redress that 

injury”), do not directly address the relevant issue: the timing of the imminent danger/nexus 

analysis vis-à-vis dismissal of a claim. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 16, 2024 (Doc. 70) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL. 

2. Plaintiff’s sur-reply (Doc. 69) filed August 7, 2024, is STRICKEN; and

3. Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status (Doc. 62) is DENIED. 

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2024 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 72 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 2