Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05397/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05397-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE SONOMA COUNTY MAIN ADULT 

DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-05397-CW (PR) 

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, MOTIONS TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS UNDER 28 

U.S.C. SECTION 1915(G) AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 

FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4 

On December 9, 2014, Plaintiff Paul Samuel Johnson, a state 

prisoner currently incarcerated at the Sonoma County Main Adult 

Detention Facility (Sonoma County Jail), filed a pro se civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged 

constitutional violations that occurred while he was incarcerated 

at the Sonoma County Jail. Plaintiff has also filed two motions 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has three strikes under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) and denies his applications to proceed IFP, 

without prejudice to his showing that his complaint alleges that 

he was in imminent physical danger at the time he filed it. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 A prisoner may not bring a civil action IFP under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 "if the prisoner has, 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 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). 

 For purposes of a dismissal that may count under § 1915(g), 

the phrase "fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted" parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) and carries the same interpretation; the word 

"frivolous" refers to a case that is "'of little weight or 

importance: having no basis in law or fact,'" and the word 

"malicious" refers to a case "filed with the 'intention or desire 

to harm another.'" Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Only cases within one of these 

three categories can be counted as strikes for § 1915(g) 

purposes, so the mere fact that a plaintiff has filed many cases 

does not alone warrant dismissal under § 1915(g). Id. Rather, 

dismissal of an action under § 1915(g) should only occur when, 

"after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an [earlier] 

action, and other relevant information, the district court 

determines that the action was dismissed because it was 

frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim." Id. A 

dismissal under § 1915(g) means that a prisoner cannot proceed 

with his action IFP under § 1915(g), but he still may pursue his 

claims if he pays the full filing fee at the outset of the 

action. Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir. 1997). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Plaintiff's Strikes 

 On April 2, 2015, the Court dismissed one of Plaintiff’s 

previous cases, Johnson v. Hanna, et al., C 14-1300 CW (PR), 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 9
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

without prejudice to filing it as a paid complaint because 

Plaintiff had at least three previous cases that were dismissed 

on grounds that qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

and his complaint did not make a plausible allegation that he 

faced imminent physical danger at the time he filed it. See 

Johnson v. Hanna, C 14-1300 CW (PR), Dkt. No. 29. 

 These dismissals count as strikes under § 1915(g) in this 

case, also. They are as follows: 

 (1) Johnson v. Cate, case no. C 11-2749 MCE CKD (E.D. Cal.), 

where the Court dismissed the complaint after notifying Plaintiff 

"that his complaint failed to state a claim and he did not 

correct the deficiencies identified by the Court." Hanna, C 14-

1300 CW (PR) at 3-4 (citing O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1154 

(9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal without prejudice counts as a strike 

under § 1915(g) if it is based on the action’s frivolousness, 

maliciousness or failure to state a claim)). 

 (2) Johnson v. Cate, case no. C 12-0598 GGH P (E.D. Cal.), 

where 

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint 

because it was "not clear what plaintiff’s 

claims are." Plaintiff was granted leave to 

amend and was granted two extensions of time 

in which to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint 

and, on October 16, 2012, the Court dismissed 

the complaint because the allegations were 

unclear and unintelligible and for failing to 

follow the court’s instructions. 

Hanna, C 14-1300 CW (PR) at 4. 

 (3) Johnson v. Alison, app. no. 12-17463 (9th Cir.), where 

the Ninth Circuit issued an order finding 

that Plaintiff’s appeal was frivolous and, as 

a result, concluded he was not entitled to 

IFP status on appeal. On January 11, 2013, 

the appeal was ultimately dismissed for 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 9
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

failure to pay the filing fee. Because the 

Ninth Circuit found the appeal to be 

frivolous, the dismissal of the appeal 

qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g). 

Hanna, C 14-1300 CW (PR) at 4-5. 

 (4) Johnson v. Toby, case no. 11-1975 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal.), 

where 

the Court conducted an initial review of the 

complaint and found the allegations failed to 

state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. The Court also dismissed 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to 

state a claim but granted Plaintiff an 

additional twenty-eight days to file a second 

amended complaint to cure the noted 

deficiencies. The Court dismissed the action 

when Plaintiff failed to file a second 

amended complaint; judgment was entered 

accordingly. The dismissal of this case for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted qualifies as a strike under 

§ 1915(g). 

Hanna, C 14-1300 CW (PR) at 5. 

 (5) Johnson v. City of Santa Rosa, case no. 12-1409 CW (PR) 

(N.D. Cal.), where 

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted and also granted his request 

to proceed IFP. On December 3, 2012, the 

Court revoked Plaintiff’s IFP status because 

he was no longer incarcerated. On December 

27, 2012, the Court dismissed the action and 

entered judgment because Plaintiff had not 

paid the filing fee or submitted a completed 

non-prisoner IFP application. Because this 

action was dismissed for failure to state a 

claim and Plaintiff failed to correct the 

pleading deficiencies, the dismissal of this 

case counts as a strike under § 1915(g). 

Hanna, C 14-1300 CW (PR) at 5. 

 Because more than three of Plaintiff's cases were dismissed 

on grounds that qualify as strikes under § 1915(g), he can only 

proceed IFP in this action if he qualifies for the imminent 

danger exception. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 9
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

(9th Cir. 2007). 

II. “Imminent Danger” Exception 

 The “imminent danger” exception “applies if the complaint 

makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced imminent 

physical danger at the time of filing” the complaint. Id. at 

1055. The complaint is the focus of the inquiry. Id.; AbdulAkbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc). 

Courts may reject allegations that are “overly speculative and 

fanciful.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57, n.11. The plaintiff 

must show a nexus between the imminent danger alleged in the 

complaint and the claims it asserts. Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 

F.3d 293, 299 (2nd Cir. 2009). This means that the plaintiff 

must show that: (1) the imminent danger of serious physical 

injury is fairly traceable to the unlawful conduct asserted in 

the complaint; and (2) a favorable judicial outcome would redress 

that injury. Id. 

 In his complaint, Plaintiff names the following individuals 

as Defendants: Sheriff Frietas; Assistant Sheriff Walker; Dr. 

Fadoki; ADA Coordinator Johnson; and "DGO Sulley." The complaint 

alleges that, during the time Plaintiff was a prisoner in the 

custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, until he was released on parole on October 12, 

2014, he was prescribed narcotic pain medications for his spine 

and hip diseases, mobility devices for his mobility problems, 

orthopedic shoes, a double mattress and a double pillow. Comp. 

at 3.1

 During that time, Plaintiff took six narcotic pain pills 

 

1

 Page numbers are from the Court's electronic case management 

docketing system. 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 9
6 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

every day. Id. 

 The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was sent to the Sonoma 

County Jail twice in the last thirty days for parole violations——

in mid-October for five days and on November 12, 2014. Comp. at 

5. It alleges that Sonoma County Jail Doctor Fadoki refused to 

prescribe Plaintiff his "correct medications ever since she began 

working here [Sonoma County Jail] about 4 years ago." Comp. at 

6. Each time Plaintiff has seen Dr. Fadoki, she "has denied to 

treat" him and has told him that she has turned the jail into a 

"non-narcotic" facility and "will not issue those level [sic] of 

pain meds to me no matter how badly I'm in pain." Id. Dr. 

Fadoki refuses to treat Plaintiff or to look at his medical 

record. Comp. at 13. ADA Coordinator Johnson also refuses "to 

honor" Plaintiff's medical records. Id. "DGO Sulley" has denied 

Plaintiff's appeals.2 Id. 

 The complaint also alleges that Assistant Sheriff Walker has 

taken away all inmate rights over the last fifteen years, 

illegally charges inmates $3.26 each week for "welfare bags" and 

taxes inmate accounts. He encourages the practices of "yard 

counseling,"3

 sensory deprivation cells and indeterminate 

confinement in administrative segregation. Comp. at 11. The 

complaint alleges that Plaintiff has been "yard counseled" 

 

2

 Because this allegation appears in the paragraph discussing 

Plaintiff's medical treatment, the Court assumes it refers to 

Plaintiff's appeals of his medical treatment. 

3

 According to Plaintiff's allegations, if the guards "feel an 

inmate is a problem," they force the inmate out of his cell and 

into the yard in handcuffs and proceed to beat, choke and 

suffocate him. This is known as "yard counseling." Comp. at 7. 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 6 of 9
7 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

twenty-five times in the last fifteen years because the guards 

enjoy it and think they can get away with it. Comp. at 10. It 

also alleges that, on two separate occasions, Assistant Sheriff 

Walker came into Plaintiff's cell and threatened to kill him 

because he has filed civil rights complaints. Assistant Sheriff 

Walker laughed at Plaintiff, called him an "asshole," and had his 

guards slam Plaintiff to the floor as he walked out. Comp. at 

12. 

 As Plaintiff's complaint is plead, it does not allege that 

he was in imminent danger at the time he filed it. In Johnson v. 

Hanna, case no. C 14-1300 CW (PR), Plaintiff similarly alleged 

that a doctor at San Quentin State Prison had refused to 

prescribe him pain medications, specifically Tylenol #3. Id. at 

7. The Court found that Plaintiff's allegations were 

insufficient to show that he was in imminent danger of physical 

injury from the doctor's actions, especially because he was soon 

transferred from San Quentin to another institution. Id. 

 The allegations about the denial of Plaintiff's pain 

medication in this complaint are similar. From the allegations, 

it appears that Plaintiff has been released on parole but, due to 

parole violations, he has been re-incarcerated at least twice. 

Therefore, his allegations of recent denial of pain medication 

appear to be for short periods of time. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1056-57 (continuing harm must be alleged as a result of being 

denied medication); White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231 (10th 

Cir. 1998) (allegations of imminent danger due to withheld 

medical treatment must be more than conclusory assertions); 

McNeil v. United States, 2006 WL 581081, *3 (W.D. Wash.)(same). 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 7 of 9
8 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Other allegations focus on Dr. Fadoki's conduct that occurred 

many years ago. These allegations are insufficient to show 

imminent physical danger at the time Plaintiff filed his 

complaint. 

 The conclusory allegations against ADA Coordinator Johnson 

and DGO Sulley do not show imminent danger or even state a 

cognizable claim against them. 

 The allegations that Plaintiff was subjected to "yard 

counseling" might show imminent danger. However, Plaintiff 

appears to be alleging that the yard counseling and other 

incidents of physical violence against him occurred when he was 

incarcerated at Sonoma County Jail many years ago. Thus, these 

allegations are insufficient to show that Plaintiff was in 

imminent physical danger on December 9, 2014, at the time he 

filed his complaint. However, the Court grants Plaintiff leave 

to clarify his allegations in an amended complaint to determine 

if it alleges he was in imminent physical danger at that time. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff's motions to proceed IFP are denied without 

prejudice to Plaintiff's alleging in an amended complaint, if he 

truthfully can do so, that he was in imminent physical danger on 

December 9, 2014, when he filed his original complaint. 

 2. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file an amended 

complaint within twenty-eight days from the date of this Order. 

If Plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint within twentyeight days, his motions to proceed IFP will be denied with 

prejudice and this action will be dismissed without prejudice to 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 8 of 9
9 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Plaintiff refiling it with the full filing fee. 

 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he shall use the 

court's civil rights complaint form, a copy of which is provided 

herewith, and include in the caption both the case number of this 

action, No. C 14-5397 CW (PR), and the heading "AMENDED 

COMPLAINT." Because an amended complaint completely replaces the 

original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims 

he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material 

from the original complaint by reference. 

 3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. 

He must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must 

comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 

 Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to 

prosecute. 

 4. The Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with a 

blank civil rights complaint form. 

 5. This Order terminates docket numbers 2 and 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/15/2015 

__________________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-05397-CW Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 9 of 9