Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00146/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00146-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY DRIVER, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KVSP ADA #1824 PANEL(S), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00146-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING 

PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE TO 

PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION

(Doc. Nos. 2, 7)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Billy Driver, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On February 3, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with 

this action. (Doc. No. 7.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. (Id. at 3.) On February 14, 2020, plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 8.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

Case 1:20-cv-00146-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 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

2

by proper analysis. The findings and recommendations identify at least three cases filed by 

plaintiff that were dismissed for failure to state a claim prior to his initiation of the present 

lawsuit. See Driver v. Martel, No. 2:08-cv-01910-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed September 

16, 2009, for failure to state a claim); Driver v. Kelso, No. 2:11-cv-02397-EFB (E.D. Cal.) 

(dismissed September 12, 2012 for failure to state a claim); Driver v. Zamora, No. 2:14-cv02170-BRO-AGR (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed August 21, 2014, for failure state a claim). The 

findings and recommendations also correctly conclude that nothing in the present record triggers 

the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g), since plaintiff has failed to allege any facts 

suggesting that he was facing any imminent danger of physical injury at the time he filed his 

complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s objections 

state in conclusory fashion, without providing any factual detail or support whatsoever, that 

plaintiff is “in present time ... in imminent danger(s) of more physical harm(s) and injuries . . . .” 

(Doc. No. 8 at 3.) But, “vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are 

insufficient to establish one’s entitlement to relief under § 1915(g)’s exception. White v. 

Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 3, 2020, (Doc. No. 7), are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), is DENIED;

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall

pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If plaintiff fails to pay

the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed; and

4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate for proceedings consistent with

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00146-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2