Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01569/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01569-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01569 JLT SKO

ORDER DECLINING THE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 3, 8) 

Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr., seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he 

alleges violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail. (See Docs. 1, 3.)

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff is subject to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 

because he had more than three actions dismissed for failure to state a claim prior to filing of this 

matter. (Doc. 8 at 2-3.) The magistrate judge also determined Plaintiff failed to show imminent 

danger of serious physical injury to satisfy the exception to Section 1915(g). (Id. at 3-7.) 

Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and he be directed to pay the filing fee in full. (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, arguing he should be 

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff does not dispute the finding that he 

has three strikes under Section 1915, but “objects on the grounds that he was at the time the 

complaint was filed in imminent danger of serious physical harm and still is in imminent danger 

Case 1:24-cv-01569-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/16/25 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

from being sexually assaulted by the Defendant Corporal Campos.” (Id. at 1.) 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on October 31, 2024, “Defendants Campos and 

Blackmon went to [Plaintiff’s] cell with the specific intent to sexually assault [him].” (Doc. 1 at 

16.) He asserts that he is incompetent, and wears diapers. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Campos 

“pushed his hand down inside [Plaintiff’s] diaper from behind and forcefully penetrated ... [his] 

anus with his fingers.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Campos’s fingernails cut his anus, which caused 

rectal bleeding. (Id. at 16-17.) Plaintiff asserts he bleeds “every time” he “uses the bathroom to 

[defecate]” and “his rectum will not stop bleeding.” (Id. at 17.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that 

on November 23, 2024—only weeks before the complaint was filed— he told the prison medical 

providers that “he has active bleeding from his rectum and requested to be examined,” and the 

treatment request was denied.1 (Id.) In the Objections, Plaintiff reports his rectum “continues to 

bleed” and “it has become infected.” (Doc. 10 at 1.) The Court finds these allegations sufficient 

to support a conclusion that Plaintiff was in imminent danger from serious physical injury at the 

time he filed the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding 

the imminency requirement may be satisfied by allegations of “an ongoing danger”); see also 

Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (“specific fact allegations of ongoing 

serious physical injury” may satisfy the Section 1915(g) exception).

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court finds the determination that Plaintiff has 

three or more strikes under Section 1915 is supported by the record. However, taking Plaintiff’s 

allegations as true, the allegations are sufficient to invoke the imminent danger exception of 

Section 1915(g). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 3, 2025 (Doc. 8) are 

DECLINED.

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.

1 The magistrate judge indicated “Plaintiff’s disagreement with the treatment he was offered on November 23, 2024, 

is insufficient to meet the imminent danger exception.” (Doc. 8 at 7.) However, Plaintiff alleges he has been “denied 

any medical care” and “denied treatment to him.” (Doc. 1 at 17, 18.)

Case 1:24-cv-01569-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/16/25 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

3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-01569-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/16/25 Page 3 of 3