Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01171-0/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

MARVIN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT TORRES,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01171 JLT (PC)

ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE; 

AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF BE REQUIRED TO 

PRE-PAY THE FILING FEE BEFORE 

PROCEEDING WITH THIS ACTION

(Doc. 1)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who brings this action against a governmental employee who is 

accused of violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.) Generally, the Court is required to 

screen complaints brought by inmates seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or 

employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or 

portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who 

is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any 

portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 02/04/20 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

I. Pleading Standard

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I 

v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678.

Prisoners may bring § 1983 claims against individuals acting “under color of state law.” 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii). Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 

F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 

962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have 

their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of 

misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 

at 969. 

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s claim arose while he was incarcerated at California State Prison in Corcoran, 

California. He names a single defendant in this damages action: Sergeant Torres.

Plaintiff’s allegations may be fairly summarized as follows:

Plaintiff is vision-impaired and refuses to attend “school” because he cannot see small 

print. Sergeant Torres has conducted a search of his cell twice in one week, taking plaintiff’s 

personal property, to include two 16 oz tumbler cups.1

////

 

1

It is unclear how plaintiff’s vision impairment is related to Sergeant Torres’s conduct.

Case 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 02/04/20 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

III. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) was enacted “to curb frivolous 

prisoner complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 

2011). Pursuant to the PLRA, the in forma pauperis statue was amended to include section 

1915(g), a non-merits related screening device which precludes prisoners with three or more 

“strikes” from proceeding in forma pauperis unless they are under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 

2007). The statute 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 

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

Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee for this action nor requested leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Review of court records reveals that on at least 

three occasions lawsuits filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed on the grounds that they were 

frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

(1) Ripple and Harris v. Gomez, Case No. 1:96-cv-05284-REC-SMS (E.D. Cal.) 

(dismissed on April 30, 1996, as frivolous); 

(2) Harris v. Ripple, Case No. 1:97-cv-05186-REC-HGB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on July 

30, 2017, as frivolous); 

(3) Harris v. Coyle, Case No. 1:97-cv-05508-AWI-DLB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on January 

21, 1999, as frivolous, malicious, and failure to state a claim); 

(4) Harris v. Glass, Case No. 2:00-cv-00937-DFL-DAD (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on August 

17, 2000, for failure to state a claim); 

(5) Harris v. Edmonds, Case No. 1:00-cv-05857-OWW-LJO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

November 27, 2000, for failure to state a claim); 

Case 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 02/04/20 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

(6) Harris v. Edmonds, Case No. 1:00-cv-07160-REC-SMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

May 28, 2012 for failure to state a claim); and 

(7) Harris v. Pliler, Case No. 2:01-cv-01125-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on March 

15, 2012, for failure to state a claim). 

Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, even had he filed a motion to do 

so. In acknowledgement of his three-strike status, plaintiff contends that his allegations regarding 

the confiscation of his personal property fall within the imminent danger exception. This 

exception, which would allow him to proceed in this action without prepayment of the filing fee,

requires plaintiff to show that he is under (1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and 

which turns on the conditions he faced at the time he filed his complaint on July 26, 2019. 

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-1056. Conditions which posed imminent danger to plaintiff at some 

earlier time are immaterial, as are any subsequent conditions. Id. at 1053. While the injury is 

merely procedural rather than a merits-based review of the claims, the allegations of imminent 

danger must still be plausible. Id. at 1055. 

The Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint allegations do not meet the imminent danger 

exception. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053. Plaintiff has not shown that he is at risk of any serious 

physical injury. Rather, plaintiff contends that some of his personal property, to include two 16ox 

tumblers, were confiscated by Sergeant Torres. Plaintiff’s factual allegations do not allege 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in 

forma pauperis in this action, and he should be required to pre-pay the $400 filing fee to proceed 

in this case. 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge to 

this action; and

The Court RECOMMENDS that plaintiff be required to pay the $400 filing fee.

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 

Case 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 02/04/20 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

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 specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT Document 3 Filed 02/04/20 Page 5 of 5