Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01185/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01185-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT EUGENE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAPTAIN CHENALO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01185-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PAYMENT OF 

FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 

DAYS

ECF No. 2

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS

ORDER TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT 

JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2019, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil 

action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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.” 28 

Case 1:19-cv-01185-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 01/22/20 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

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had three or more actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or 

for failing to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted.1 

Plaintiff has not satisfied the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g). See Andrews v. 

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007). In his complaint, plaintiff contends that he 

was not given his preferred cell placement. Plaintiff claims that he was housed in cells with poor 

lighting, mold, and without available lower bunks. See ECF No. 1 at 4-8. Plaintiff does not, 

however, allege that he is currently at risk of physical harm. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application should be denied, and he should 

pay the filing fee in full, since he has accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent 

danger of serious physical harm at the time this action was initiated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the 

findings and recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that:

1. plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, ECF No. 2, be denied;

2. plaintiff be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption 

of these findings and recommendations; and

3. if plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption of 

these findings and recommendations, all pending motions be terminated and this action 

be dismissed without prejudice.

The undersigned submits the findings and recommendations to a district judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District 

Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and 

 

1 The cases include: (1) Thomas v. Shaffer, Case No. 15-15408 (9th Cir.) (finding the appeal to be 

frivolous on June 10, 2015, and dismissing the appeal on July 8, 2015); (2) Thomas v. Gomez, 

Case No. 3:98-cv-00874-JM-LSP (S.D. Cal.) (dismissing the case for failure to state a claim on 

December 13, 1999); and (3) Thomas v. Woodford, Case No. 2:04-cv-07989-JVS-VBK (C.D. 

Cal.) (adopting findings and recommendations to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim on 

January 17, 2006).

Case 1:19-cv-01185-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 01/22/20 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

recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with 

the court. That document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:19-cv-01185-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 3