Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01044/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01044-3/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

ERIC C.R. K’NAPP,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

PAY FILING FEE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

On February 12, 2014, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations to 

revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and to require that Plaintiff pay the $400 filing 

fee in full within twenty-one days. The District Judge assigned to the case adopted the 

findings and recommendation in full on March 17, 2014.

Plaintiff appealed. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal was 

denied. (ECF No. 16.) His appeal was dismissed on November 26, 2014 for failure to 

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 01/08/15 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

pay filing and docketing fees. (ECF No. 17.)

On December 3, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full or 

show cause why the action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff responded 

to the order to show cause by arguing that he should not be required to pay the filing 

fee, requesting leave to amend his complaint, and arguing his action should not be 

dismissed. (ECF No. 19.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits a federal court to authorize the commencement and 

prosecution of an action without prepayment of fees by an individual who submits an 

affidavit demonstrating that he or she is unable to pay the fees. However, 

[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). 

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff first argues that he should not be required to pay the applicable filing fee 

because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unconstitutionally abridges his rights to freedom of 

speech, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and to access the 

courts. This argument is without merit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit has concluded that § 1915(g) passes constitutional muster. Rodriguez v. Cook, 

169 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff next argues that he had not incurred three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) at the time of filing his complaint. This contention was rejected in the order 

adopting the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 9.) Moreover, the Ninth Circuit 

has confirmed that three of the cases relied on in the findings and recommendations, 

Knapp v. Knowles, no. 2:03-cv-00394 (E.D. Cal. 2004), Knapp v. Knowles, No. 2:06-cvCase 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 01/08/15 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

00453 (E.D. Cal. 2007), and Knapp v. Harrison, No. 06-cv-07702 (C.D. Cal. 2008), 

constitute “strikes.” See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013). Each of these 

strikes was incurred prior to the filing of this action. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.

Plaintiff also argues that he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis 

because he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his 

complaint. Again, this contention was rejected in the order adopting the findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 9.) The facts relied on by Plaintiff do not demonstrate that 

he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s alternative request to amend his complaint to allege imminent 

danger would be futile and should be denied. 

Plaintiff next argues that dismissal of the action for any reason would be in 

conflict with the Court’s duty to faithfully and impartially perform its duties, apparently 

because Plaintiff is indigent and proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has been given several 

opportunities to be heard on the question of whether the instant action is subject to 

dismissal under § 1915(g). His general contention that the action cannot be dismissed 

because he is indigent and unrepresented by counsel is unsupported by any authority.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that dismissal of this action would constitute part of a 

custom, policy, or practice of discrimination and retaliation against him by unspecified 

members of the federal judiciary. The general allegation that dismissal of the current 

proceedings would reflect partiality or bias does not provide a basis for recusal, In re 

Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted), and certainly 

does not establish that § 1915(g) does not apply. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In sum, Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause fails to establish that 

§ 1915(g) does not apply. He has not paid the filing fee in this action as ordered by the 

Court. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee.

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 01/08/15 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

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)(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 a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 

and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ F.3d __, __, No. 11-17911, 2014 WL

6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01044-AWI-MJS Document 20 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 4