Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00983/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00983-1/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

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00983 GSA (PC)

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 

MATTER

ORDER RECOMMENDING THAT:

(1) PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE 

DENIED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

(ECF No. 2)

(2) PLAINTIFF BE REQUIRED TO PAY 

FILING FEE IN FULL PRIOR TO 

PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER WITH THIS 

ACTION

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN 

FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 

2, 5. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Case 1:24-cv-00983-KES-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/30/24 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

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g): (1) that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and (2) that he be 

required to pay the filing fee in full prior to proceeding any further with this matter. The Clerk of 

Court will also be ordered to randomly assign a District Judge to this matter.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 8, 2010, in Blackman v. Rocha, No. 1:10-cv-01824 LJO SMS (“Rocha”), 

Plaintiff was identified as a three strikes litigant within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and it 

was determined that he did not meet the imminent danger exception. Rocha, ECF No. 4. The 

Rocha Court took judicial notice of the following cases and identified them as strikes:

• Blackman v. Hartwell, No. 1:99-cv-05822 REC HGB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2001)

(dismissed for failure to state a claim);

• Blackman v. Medina, No. 3:05-cv-05390 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006 (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim);

• Blackman v. Variz, No. 3:06-cv-06398 SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2006) (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim), and

• Blackman v. Taxdahl, No. 1:04-cv-06389 AWI LJO (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2007)

(dismissed for failure to state a claim).

Rocha, ECF No. 4 at 1-2, n.1. As a result, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed without prejudice to 

Plaintiff refiling the matter along with the full filing fee. See id. at 2.

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff’s complaint along with an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis were docketed. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Upon review of the Rocha Court’s determination that 

Plaintiff is a three strikes litigant, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he should 

not be required to pay the filing fee in full prior to proceeding any further with this action. See

ECF No. 6. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff was also given the 

opportunity to pay the filing fee in full. He was given twenty-one days to take either course of 

action and was cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s order within the time allotted 

might result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. Id. at 3.

Case 1:24-cv-00983-KES-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/30/24 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

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a showing of cause, nor has he filed a request for an 

extension of time to do so—nor has Plaintiff paid the filing fee in full. He has not responded to 

the Court’s order in any way.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) states:

In 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).

B. Analysis

A three strikes litigant must pay the filing fee for a complaint in full prior to proceeding 

any further in an action unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time he 

files the complaint, and the imminent harm is related to the violations of right alleged that are 

alleged in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (imminent danger requirement); Ray v. Lara, 

31 F.4th 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2022) (nexus with alleged violations of right requirement). To the 

extent that the Court is able to understand Plaintiff’s complaint, it does not appear that he has 

made a plausible assertion in the complaint that he is in imminent danger of serious physical 

harm. See generally ECF No. 1. This fact, as well as the fact that Plaintiff has neither filed a 

showing of cause that disputes his three strikes litigant status, nor paid the filing fee in full,

warrants an order that: (1) denies Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) 

requires Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full prior to proceeding any further with this action. See

generally 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 

District Judge to this matter.

Case 1:24-cv-00983-KES-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/30/24 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

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

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

2. Consistent with Plaintiff’s three strikes litigant status as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g), Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee in full prior to proceeding any further with 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.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00983-KES-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/30/24 Page 4 of 4