Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00045/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00045-1/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

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIMS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF‟S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. Nos. 2, 4, 5)

Plaintiff, Seavon Pierce, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 January 11, 

2016, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.)

On January 27, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that plaintiff‟s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action be denied. That 

recommendation was based on the magistrate judge‟s finding that plaintiff was barred from 

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) since he had at least three 

prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

could be granted prior to the filing of this action and that his current allegations failed to show 

that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed suit. (Doc. No. 4.) 

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections 

thereto were due within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 5.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/08/16 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

As was accurately stated in the magistrate judge‟s findings and recommendations, a 

prisoner may not bring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) if they have, “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.” (Doc. No. 4 at 1) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).1 As also accurately noted by 

the assigned magistrate judge, plaintiff had suffered at least three dismissals qualifying as strikes2

under § 1915(g) prior to his filing of this action. Thus, plaintiff may only proceed under §

1915(g) only if his allegations satisfy the imminent danger of serious physical injury exception. 

The Ninth Circuit has stated that “requiring a prisoner to „allege [ ] an ongoing danger‟ . . . is the 

most sensible way to interpret the immanency requirement.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 2003)). In 

Andrews the Ninth Circuit held that the imminent danger faced by the prisoner need not be 

limited to the time frame of the filing of the complaint, but that the exception may be satisfied by 

alleging that the imminent danger faced by the plaintiff is an ongoing one. See Andrews at 1053.

Here, the assigned magistrate found that the allegations in plaintiff‟s complaint and in his 

motion — that defendants are failing in their duty to report and investigate various crimes 

involving President Obama allegedly amounting to concealment along with other largely 

nonsensical allegations — do not satisfy the imminent danger exception under § 1915(g). In his 

objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff asserts that the magistrate judge 

improperly exercised jurisdiction over this action and that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 28 

U.S.C. 1915, does not apply in this case. (Doc. No. 5.) However, § 1915 is the statute under 

which a litigant may apply for in forma pauperis status to be relieved of prepayment of the full 

 

1

 Dismissals on any of the three enumerated grounds are colloquially referred to as “strikes.”

2

See Seavon Pierce v. Fernando Gonzales, et al., 1:10-cv-00285-JLT (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

December 3, 2012 for failure to state a claim); Seavon Pierce v. Lancaster State Prison, 2:13-cv08126-UA-CW (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on December 3, 2013 as frivolous, malicious, and for 

failure to state a claim); and Seavon Pierce v. Warden of Lancaster, 2:13-cv-01939-UA-CW

(C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on March 28, 2013 as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim).

Case 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/08/16 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

filing fee. This is the statute under which plaintiff‟s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

must be considered despite his objection. Thus, plaintiff must meet the requirements of § 1915(g) 

to be granted in forma pauperis status in this, or any other civil action he may bring while 

incarcerated. Plaintiff neither argues, nor cites any authority to show, that any of his allegations 

meet the imminent danger requirement. Plaintiff has not attempted to establish that he is 

otherwise entitled to be granted in forma pauperis status in this action and the court finds no basis 

upon which his application could be properly granted. 

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

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 4), issued on January 27, 2016, are

ADOPTED in full; 

2. Plaintiff‟s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED;

3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to pay 

in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action; and

4. Plaintiff‟s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00045-DAD-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 3