Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01252-1/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

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGINA JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-01252-JDP (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE 

LENGTHY COMPLAINT AND 

DIRECTING THAT PLAINTIFF SHOW 

CAUSE WHY HIS APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

SHOULD NOT BE DENIED AND HE BE 

DIRECTED TO PAY THE ENTIRE FILING 

FEE

ECF Nos. 2 & 5

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this section 1983 action and, concurrently, has applied to 

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5. He is, however, a “three-striker” within the meaning of 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1

 He may only proceed in forma pauperis if he shows that he is within 

1

See, e.g., Hammler v. Dignity Health, No. 1:20-cv-1778-JLT-HBK (PC), 2021 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 230439, at *10-13 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021); Hammler v. California, No. 1:20-cv-00630-

DAD-GSA (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81763, at *1-8 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2020); Hammler v. 

Diaz, No. 1:20-cv-0488-JLT (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210627, at *1-5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 

2020); Hammler v. Compose, No. 1:19-cv-01149-DAD-GSA (PC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

154434, at *4-6 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2019); Hammler v. Allison, No. 1:21-cv-00122-AWI-GSA 

(PC), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19966, at *11-14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2021); Hammler v. California, 

No. 1:19-cv-01057-LJO-SAB (PC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171498, at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 

2019); Hammler v. Burns, No. 1:20-cv-00489-SAB (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62772, at *1-6 

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 8 Filed 11/08/22 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

imminent physical danger. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). His current complaint does not make that 

showing.

Plaintiff names at least twenty-six defendants and alleges numerous violations of his 

rights, all of which he claims are connected by way of an overarching conspiracy. He claims, for 

instance, that in March 2022, defendants Herrera and Schuman used excessive force against him. 

ECF No. 1 at 19-20. Separately, he alleges that, after this attack, medical defendants failed to 

ensure that his wounds were cared for appropriately. Id. at 27-28. He also claims that after 

declaring his intent to sue over the attack, defendant Capossele brought him a false rules violation 

report and oversaw a rights-deficient disciplinary hearing in retaliation. Id. at 28-29, 34-35. 

Finally, plaintiff refences other attacks on his person by other defendants (not Herrera or 

Schuman). Id. at 38-39. Plaintiff has not specifically alleged what, if any, imminent harm he 

now faces, however. Moreover, given that the complaint encompasses so many separate claims, I 

cannot tell whether any risk of imminent harm, to the extent it might exist, is sufficiently related 

to the crux of the suit. Plaintiff may respond to this order within thirty days with an amended 

complaint that explains why he should be allowed to proceed notwithstanding his status as a 

“three-striker.” 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to file a complaint in excess of twenty-five pages, ECF No. 2, is 

GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form.

3. Within thirty days plaintiff may file an amended complaint that explains why he 

should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and that contains only related claims. If he fails 

to do so, I will recommend that this application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and he be 

required to tender the full filing fee. 

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020); Hammler v. Diaz, No. 1:20-cv-0488-JLT (PC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

210627, at *4-7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020).

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 8 Filed 11/08/22 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2022 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 8 Filed 11/08/22 Page 3 of 3