Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01760/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01760-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBEY KURT HAIRSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. CURLISS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:14-cv-01760-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL 

WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff Robey Kurt Hairston is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring 

a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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). Plaintiff has had three or more 

actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which 

Case 1:14-cv-01760-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 11/24/14 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

relief maybe granted.1

To meet the imminent danger exception, the complaint must plausibly allege “that 

the prisoner faced „imminent danger of serious physical injury‟ at the time of filing.” 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff‟s allegations are 

fragmented and difficult to understand. As far as the Court can decipher, Plaintiff 

complains of at least one instance of excessive force that occurred on September 28, 

2014, almost a month before the Complaint was filed. The allegation do not suggest 

Plaintiff faced imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint.

The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff‟s in forma pauperis application should be 

denied because he accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent danger of 

serious physical harm at the time this action was initiated. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff 

should be provided with the opportunity to pay the filing fee in full.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 2) should be DENIED,

2. Plaintiff should be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twentyone days of adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, and

3. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of 

adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, all pending motions should be 

terminated and this action dismissed without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 

any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such 

 

1

 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Hairston v. State of 

California, et al., 5:14-cv-00765-UA-MAN (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed May 6, 2014 for, among other reasons, 

failure to state a claim, no appeal filed); Hairston v. Bazanifh, et al., 8:10-cv-01652-UA-MLG (C.D. Cal.) 

(dismissed November 8, 2010 for, among other reasons, failure to state a claim, no appeal filed); and

Hairston v. Brooks Bozanigh, et al., 8:10-cv-01630-UA-MLG (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed November 8, 2010 for, 

among other reasons, failure to state a claim, no appeal filed). These strikes were final prior to the date 

Plaintiff filed this action. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 1:14-cv-01760-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 11/24/14 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

a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendations." The parties are 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: November 21, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01760-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 11/24/14 Page 3 of 3