Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00770/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00770-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. HOLGUIN, et.al.,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-0770 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Eddie Young (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 19, 2006 and the Court granted him

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on July 25, 2006. On June 21, 2007, the Court directed the

United States Marshal to serve process on defendants Holguin, Shelton and Moore and on August

9, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for revocation of plaintiff’s in

forma pauperis privilege. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n

no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . 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 groundsthat 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.” 

Defendants set forth five dismissals that they contend count as “strikes” under section

Case 1:06-cv-00770-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 12/19/07 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

1915(g). Defendants therefore argue that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis privilege must be revoked.

Defendants contend that Young v. McCargar, No. CV-00-2393 (E.D. Cal.) was dismissed for failure

to state a claim and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Young v. McCargar, 60 Fed. Appx. 164.

Defendants contend that Young v. Edwards, CV-F-02-2289 (C.D. Cal.) was also dismissed for

failure to state a claim and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Young v. Edwards, 63 Fed. Appx. 371.

Defendants further contend that Young v. Briddle, No. 98-0714 (C.D. Cal.) was dismissed for failure

to state a claim.

Defendants have met their burden by setting forth the grounds upon which they believe they

are entitled to dismissal. As noted, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. The court

has reviewed the cases relied upon by defendants and agrees that plaintiff has three strikes under

1915(g). Plaintiff is therefore subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in

forma pauperis unless plaintiff is, at the time the complaint is filed, under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that plaintiff has alleged no facts that

support a finding that he is, at this time, under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Accordingly, plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis and must submit the appropriate filing fee

in order to proceed with this action. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Defendants motion to dismiss be granted in part;

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked;

3. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days; and

4. This action be dismissed without prejudice if plaintiff failsto pay the filing fee in full

within thirty days.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

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

Case 1:06-cv-00770-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 12/19/07 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 18, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00770-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3