Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00290-1/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 

VESTER L. PATTERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0290-MCE-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff Vester Patterson is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). For the reasons explained below, he has not demonstrated that he is eligible to proceed 

in forma pauperis. 

A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis: 

 

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 danger of 

serious physical injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Court records reflect that on at least three prior occasions, plaintiff has 

brought actions while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See (1) Patterson v. Gravlin, No. 2:98-cv-1590-

Case 2:15-cv-00290-MCE-EFB Document 8 Filed 04/23/15 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

AAH-RC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 1998) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim and as 

frivolous); (2) Patterson v. Lombatoz, No. 3:98-cv-1759-AJB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 1998) (order 

dismissing action for failure to state a claim); (3) Patterson v. Morris, No. 2:98-cv-5252-AAHRC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 1998) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim); (4) Patterson v. 

Zuniga, No. 2:11-cv-9713 (C.D. Cal.) (December 22, 2011 order denying application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on grounds that complaint fails to state a claim and seeks monetary 

relief from an immune defendant, and February 22, 2012 order certifying that plaintiff’s appeal 

therefrom is frivolous); and (5) Patterson v. Leslie, No. 2:12-cv-6088-UA-SS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 

2012) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim). See also Patterson v. Lombatoz, No. 

3:00-cv-83-W-NLS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2000) (order designating plaintiff a three strikes litigant 

for purposes of §1915(g)); Patterson v. Ratelle, No. 2:99-cv-369-CM-RC (C.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 

2003) (order identifying plaintiff as a vexatious litigant). 

The section 1915(g) exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that 

the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). For the exception to 

apply, the court must look to the conditions the “prisoner faced at the time the complaint was 

filed, not at some earlier or later time.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1056 (requiring that prisoner 

allege “an ongoing danger” to satisfy the imminency requirement). Courts need “not make an 

overly detailed inquiry into whether the allegations qualify for the exception.” Id. at 1055. 

In the complaint (ECF No. 1), plaintiff claims that his sentence has been incorrectly 

calculated and that his related administrative appeals have been denied. He alleges that he should 

no longer be incarcerated and that because of the miscalculation, he faces the ongoing and 

imminent danger “that surrounds prison living each day,” including the possibility of being 

assaulted. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that he suffered from an 

ongoing or imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. Thus, 

the imminent danger exception does not apply. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis must therefore be denied pursuant to § 1915(g). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00290-MCE-EFB Document 8 Filed 04/23/15 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

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and 

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the $400 

filing fee. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: April 23, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00290-MCE-EFB Document 8 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3