Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00172/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00172-0/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

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. RAMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0172 DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed this action on January 23, 2020, 

seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local 

Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the court is plaintiff’s complaint for 

screening and plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, 

this court finds plaintiff fails to meet the standards to proceed in forma pauperis and recommends 

this action be dismissed if plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) permits a federal court to authorize 

the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who 

submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment 

in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, 

on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any 

Case 2:20-cv-00172-JAM-DB Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 4
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

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).

This “three strikes rule” was part of “a variety of reforms designed to filter out the bad 

claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the good.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135

S. Ct. 1759, 1762 (2015) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). If a prisoner has 

“three strikes” under § 1915(g), the prisoner is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless 

he meets the exception for imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 

493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). To meet this exception, the complaint of a “three-strikes” 

prisoner must plausibly allege that the prisoner was faced with imminent danger of serious 

physical injury at the time his complaint was filed. See Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 

(9th Cir. 2015); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055. 

HAS PLAINTIFF ACCRUED THREE STRIKES?

Plaintiff has numerous lawsuits in this district. Recently, District Judges England, 

Nunley, and Mueller each held that plaintiff had accrued three strikes prior to filing the 

complaints in those cases. See Blackman v. Skelton, No. 2:18-cv-3273 MCE EFB (June 17, 2019 

Order); Blackman v. Voong, No. 2:18-cv-0216 TLN AC (Mar. 16, 2018 Order); Blackman v. 

Dixon, 2:18-cv-0079 KJM AC (Aug. 1, 2019 Order). In each case, the following prior cases were 

identified as strikes: 

1. Blackman v. Hartwell, No. 1:99-cv-5822 REC HGB (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on 

March 12, 2001 for failure to state a claim); 

2. Blackman v. Variz, No. 3:06-cv-6398 SI (N.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on December 18, 

2006 for failure to state a claim);

3. Blackman v. Mazariegos, No. 3:06-cv-7625 SI (N.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed with 

leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on September 4, 2007 for failure to file 

an amended complaint); and

////

Case 2:20-cv-00172-JAM-DB Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 4
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

4. Blackman v. Mazariegos, No. 3:07-cv-2021 SI (N.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on 

September 5, 2007 for failure to state a claim). 

Each of these cases was dismissed prior to the filing of the complaint in the present case 

as well. Accordingly, plaintiff accrued three strikes prior to filing this case and may not proceed 

unless he can show he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g).

IS PLAINTIFF IN IMMINENT DANGER OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY?

The availability of the imminent danger exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced 

at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time. See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1053. “[A]ssertions of imminent danger of less obviously injurious practices may be rejected as 

overly speculative or fanciful.” Id. at 1057 n.11. Imminent danger of serious physical injury 

must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or hypothetical. To meet his burden under § 

1915(g), an inmate must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a 

pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. 

Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “Vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of harm 

are insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). That is, the 

“imminent danger” exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” 

and “a threat . . . is real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint filed January 23, 2020. Plaintiff lists over 

150 defendants. While plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to interpret, he appears to be attempting to 

state the following claims: (1) some defendants interfered with or failed to process his prison 

appeals; (2) some defendants used prison computers to “change [their] identification;” and (3) he 

is being denied law library access. Plaintiff does not allege that he was at risk of any sort of 

physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. Therefore, plaintiff fails to meet the imminent 

danger exception to § 1915(g). Plaintiff should only be permitted to proceed with this action if he 

pays the filing fee. 

////

////

Case 2:20-cv-00172-JAM-DB Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 

judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

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

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any 

order adopting these findings and recommendations and be warned that failure to do so will result 

in the dismissal of 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. 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: January 28, 2020

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/blac0172.3 strikes fr

Case 2:20-cv-00172-JAM-DB Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 4 of 4