Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00248/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00248-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00248-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Julio Sandoval is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a 

Prisoner. (Doc. 2.) Because Plaintiff has accrued three or more “strikes” under section 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 and fails to show that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court 

will recommend that his motion be denied.

I. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs in forma pauperis proceedings. The statute provides that “[i]n 

no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section 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 claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 

Case 1:23-cv-00248-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 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

2

danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

II. DISCUSSION 

The Court takes judicial notice1of three of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits that were dismissed 

for a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or for repeated violations of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8: (1) Sandoval v. Unknown, Case No. 1:12-cv-01760-SKO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed June 5, 

2013, for failure to state a claim); (2) Sandoval v. Diaz, Case No. 1:20-cv-01314-DAD-BAM

(E.D. Cal.) (dismissed October 21, 2021, for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); and (3) 

Sandoval v. Diaz, Case No. 1:20-cv-01374-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed November 22, 

2021, for failure to state a claim & failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). See Moore v. 

Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893–94 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to 

state a claim is a strike); Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for 

repeated violations of Rule 8 is a strike). Each of these actions was dismissed prior to the 

commencement of the current action on February 18, 2023. Plaintiff is therefore subject to the 

section 1915(g) bar, and he is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless, 

at the time he filed his complaint, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Court has reviewed the complaint in this action. Plaintiff generally alleges the named 

defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, failing to provide 

adequate medical care and to protect him from harm in November 2020 through April 2021, in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See Doc. 1.) 

The statute's imminent danger exception applies where facts indicating imminent danger 

appear “on the face of the complaint.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1050; see also id. at 

1055 (“exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 

‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”); see also Ibrahim v. Dist. of 

Columbia, 463 F.3d 3, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“In determining whether he qualifies [for the 

‘imminent danger’ exception], we look to the complaint...”); Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 

1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 

1980).

Case 1:23-cv-00248-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 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

3

1350 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he issue [under § 1915(g)] is whether [plaintiff's] complaint, as a 

whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury”).

The undersigned finds that the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint do not demonstrate an 

imminent danger. The actions alleged to have caused physical injury happened about two years 

before the filing of the complaint. Further, despite Plaintiff’s assertions that he continues to feel 

pain in his lungs and occasionally still has trouble breathing, an exhibit to Plaintiff’s complaint 

reveals that a lung x-ray performed on March 8, 2021 revealed no abnormality, that a plan of care 

was established, and that further medical treatment was provided. (See Doc. 1 at 17 [Reasonable 

Accommodation Panel (RAP) Response dated 3/18/21]). Conditions which posed imminent 

danger to Plaintiff at some earlier time are immaterial, Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053, and an

unhealed past injury does not equate to a threatened future injury or an ongoing injury. Id. at 

1056. 

In sum, Plaintiff's allegations fail to demonstrate that he faced imminent danger of serious 

physical injury at the time of filing his complaint, and Plaintiff is therefore precluded from 

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action.

III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a 

district judge to this action and RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED; and,

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full within 30 days.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 

this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 

Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 

document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

//

//

//

Case 1:23-cv-00248-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 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

4

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00248-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 4