Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02268/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02268-1/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

LONNIE WILIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 15-cv-2268 MCE KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 generally permits any court of the United States 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 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).

Case 2:15-cv-02268-MCE-KJN Document 10 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 5
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 has suffered three strikes for purposes of section 1915(g). See 11-cv-00426 TLN 

EFB P, ECF No. 40 (finding that plaintiff has three prior strikes).1 Accordingly, plaintiff cannot 

proceed in forma pauperis unless she meets the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g). 

The imminent danger exception applies only if it is clear that the danger existed when the 

complaint was filed. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The danger 

must be real and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003), and must be 

ongoing, Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056. Allegations of imminent danger that are overly speculative 

or fanciful may be rejected. Id. at 1057 n.11. For the following reasons, the undersigned finds

that plaintiff has not met the imminent injury exception.

The complaint, filed November 2, 2015, contains several, unrelated claims. First, plaintiff 

alleges that in January 2015, defendants Smith, Stake, Prentice and Hayne told inmate Sansone, a 

Two-Five gang member, to attack plaintiff because plaintiff had snitched on the Two-Five gang 

and because plaintiff was a sex offender. (ECF No. 1 at 4-7.) Plaintiff’s claim that defendants 

Smith, Stake, Prentice and Hayne set her up to be assaulted back in January 2015 does not 

demonstrate that plaintiff suffered an imminent injury from these defendants at the time she filed 

the complaint in November 2015.

Plaintiff next alleges that in September 2015, she asked to be moved away from California 

State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”), because defendant Bortolamedi assaulted plaintiff in May 

2014 and June 2015. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff alleges that the assault was in retaliation for plaintiff 

complaining that defendant Bortolamedi and other prison officials were poisoning plaintiff. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that the poisoning began in August 2010 and continued through the time plaintiff 

prepared the complaint. (Id. at 8.) 

////

 

1

 The court hereby takes judicial notice of the December 21, 2011 findings and 

recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Brennan in 11-cv-00426 GEB EFB P, and his 

finding that plaintiff had three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) 

(allowing a court to take judicial notice of a fact “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is 

...capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned.”); see 11-cv-00426 GEB EFB P, ECF No. 45 (order by Honorable 

Garland E. Burrell adopting the December 21, 2011 findings and recommendations).

Case 2:15-cv-02268-MCE-KJN Document 10 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff alleges that in October 2015, defendant Balbasova denied plaintiff’s request for 

medical treatment for the medical problems she suffered as a result of being poisoned. (Id. at 9.) 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Andrichuk and Schneider conspired to file false progress notes in 

plaintiff’s health records, stating that plaintiff was not being poisoned. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Macomber, the CSP-Sac Warden, ignored the assaults on 

plaintiff and the poisoning of plaintiff. (Id. at 10-11.) 

Plaintiff’s claims that he was assaulted in May 2014 and June 2015 for complaining about 

being poisoned do not demonstrate that she suffered a threat of imminent injury when she filed 

the complaint in November 2015. With respect to plaintiff’s claim that the poisoning was 

ongoing, the undersigned observes that plaintiff has made this claim in other lawsuits filed in this 

court. Magistrate Judge Brennan addressed this claim in 11-00426. In recommending denial of 

plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge Brennan found that,

[P]laintiff’s declaration stating that she had been poisoned with 

arsenic was “of little probative value as it appear[ed] to be based 

solely on conjecture and suspicion. Dckt. No. 26 at 6. The 

undersigned also determined that plaintiff had “submitted no 

evidence, other than her own declaration to support her contentions 

that defendants have poisoned her or denied her HIV medication.” 

Id. at 5; see also id. at 6 (“Because plaintiff has not made a 

convincing showing that she is being poisoned or denied HIV 

medication, the court is not convinced that irreparable harm will 

result if her motion is denied or that the balance of equities tips in 

her favor.”); Dckt. No. 39 (district judge’s December 16, 2011 

order adopting recommendation and denying plaintiff’s requests for 

injunctive relief).

In light of this record, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s 

allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury are not 

plausible and that the imminent danger exception does not apply. 

See Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 (section 1915(g) imminent danger 

exception applies where complaint makes a “plausible” allegation 

that prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

the time of filing.); id. at 1057 n. 11 (“[A]ssertions of imminent 

danger of less obviously injurious practices may be rejected as 

overly speculative or fanciful[] when they are supported by 

implausible or untrue allegations that the ongoing practice has 

produced past harm”).

(2: 11-cv-00426 TLN EFB P at ECF No. 40 at 3-4.)

////

Case 2:15-cv-02268-MCE-KJN Document 10 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 5
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

The allegations plaintiff makes regarding being poisoned in the instant complaint are also 

not supported by any documentation. For the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Brennan, the 

undersigned also finds that plaintiff’s allegations regarding being poisoned are not plausible and 

that the imminent injury exception does not apply based on these claims. 

Because plaintiff’s claims regarding being poisoned are not plausible, plaintiff’s claims

that defendant Balbasova denied plaintiff’s request for medical treatment for the medical 

problems she suffered as a result of being poisoned do not meet the imminent injury exception. 

Similarly, plaintiff’s claims that defendants Andrichuk and Schneider falsely wrote in her medical 

records that she was not being poisoned do not meet the imminent injury exception. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Terrel, Vela and Porter took plaintiff’s personal and legal 

property. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Macomber and Alcazar have 

denied plaintiff the right to marry her fiancé. (Id. at 14.) Neither of these claims involve 

allegations of physical injury. Accordingly, they do not meet the imminent physical injury 

exception. 

Plaintiff’s complaint includes allegations against prison officials who are not identified as 

defendants. For example, plaintiff alleges that Psychiatrist Hague ordered psychiatric medication 

for plaintiff that made her mental illness worse. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff alleges that several other 

non-defendants were involved in her alleged poisoning and also assaulted her. (Id. at 11-12.) 

The undersigned will not consider claims involving non-defendants in considering whether the 

imminent injury exception is applicable.

For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that plaintiff does not meet the 

imminent injury exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends 

that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be ordered to 

pay the filing fee.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis be denied; plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee. 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-02268-MCE-KJN Document 10 Filed 02/04/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” 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: February 4, 2016

Will2268.56

Case 2:15-cv-02268-MCE-KJN Document 10 Filed 02/04/16 Page 5 of 5