Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02830/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02830-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JAMES HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. KAHLON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-2830 KJM CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action. This proceeding 

was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It has already been determined 

by the Ninth Circuit that plaintiff has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Hicks v. Yeh, No. 

23-15486 (9th Cir. May 31, 2023). Therefore, plaintiff can only proceed in forma pauperis if he 

adequately alleges in his complaint that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

In his December 1, 2023, complaint, plaintiff does not explicitly allege that he is “under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. He does complain about the treatment he has 

received over the course of four-and-a-half years for a benign tumor on his left femur. His 

treatment status at the time he filed his complaint is not entirely clear, but it does appear that, at 

that point, the tumor had not been removed, plaintiff’s ability to use a walker had been revoked, 

Case 2:23-cv-02830-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 04/29/24 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

plaintiff had been denied supervised physical therapy, and denied referral to an orthopedic 

oncologist. It appears that plaintiff had been provided access to a physical therapist through 

video conference. It is not clear whether, at that point, plaintiff was receiving pain medication.

With respect to the treatment denied, plaintiff fails to point to facts indicating that the lack 

of treatment manifests an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The same goes for the use 

of a walker. The court assumes a walker helps plaintiff with his mobility at his prison, but

plaintiff does not show that denial of access to one makes a serious physical injury imminent. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.2) be denied and that plaintiff be ordered to pay the 

$405.00 filing fee for this action.

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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 29, 2024

1

hick2830.3ks

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02830-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 2