Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01316-1/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 

LEON E. MORRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DR. NANGALAMA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1316-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. As explained below, plaintiff is 

not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis, and for this reason, his application must be denied. 

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 plaintiff has been designated a three-strikes 

litigant for purposes of § 1915(g). See Morris v. Green, No. 16-17356, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 

26497 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017). 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01316-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/10/20 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 

The section 1915(g) exception applies only 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). Plaintiff’s 

complaint makes no such showing. See ECF No. 1. In fact, plaintiff previously filed the identical 

complaint in an earlier action and was informed of the same. See Morris v. Nangalama, No. 

1:19-cv-0205-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1 (plaintiff’s February 13, 3019 complaint) and 

ECF No. 3 (court’s February 15, 2019 findings and recommendations to deny plaintiff’s 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g)). Plaintiff’s application 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must therefore be denied pursuant to § 1915(g). 

Typically, the court would afford plaintiff the opportunity to pay the filing fee and 

proceed with his claims. In this case, however, plaintiff has filed a complaint duplicative of one 

that was previously dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. See Morris v. 

Nangalama, No. 1:19-cv-0205-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 3 (February 15, 2019 findings and 

recommendations to dismiss action with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations), ECF 

No. 4 (April 17, 2019 order adopting findings and recommendations). As a result, this 

duplicative case must be dismissed for the same reason. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United 

States District Judge to this action. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

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

2. This action be dismissed as duplicative. 

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 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01316-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/10/20 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 

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: March 9, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01316-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 3