Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00840/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00840-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WILLIAM COOK

Plaintiff, No. CIV-05-0840 LKK KJM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for a temporary restraining order,

seeking to prevent the state from collecting DNA samples from inmates.

On December 5, 2005, this court filed an order, noting that plaintiff was barred

from proceeding with this action without payment of the entire filing fee because he had “struck

out” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court

gave plaintiff a chance to show why the dismissals identified in the order should not count as

strikes.

On January 9, 2006, plaintiff submitted a reply, in which he claimed he no longer

possessed information about his earlier cases. Accordingly, unless plaintiff’s complaint shows 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00840-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 03/21/06 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

2

he is in “imminent danger,” this action should be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to pay the

filing fee.

The three strikes provision of the PLRA does not bar a plaintiff from filing a civil

rights action if he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “The

statute contemplates that the imminent danger will exist contemporaneously with the bringing of

the actions.” Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 317 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 953

(2001). “Imminent” means “about to occur at any moment or . . . impending.” Id. at 315; see

also Oxford English Dictionary, OED online, 2003, available at http:// dictionary.oed.com

(“close at hand in its incidence; coming on shortly”). 

Plaintiff challenges California’s policy of obtaining DNA samples from inmates. 

There is nothing in his complaint suggesting the potential for physical harm. Accordingly, his

action should be dismissed without prejudice.

Because plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor explained his “strikes,” he does

not have a viable action pending in this court. Accordingly, he cannot pursue his request for a

temporary restraining order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 28, 2005, request for a

temporary restraining order is denied. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-00840-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 03/21/06 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

3

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

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 twenty

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 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 21, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

cook0840.56

Case 2:05-cv-00840-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3