Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00342-7/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

CYMEYON HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00342-TLN-JDP (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS 

ECF No. 35

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

status on the grounds that plaintiff was recently declared a vexatious litigant and he is a “threestriker” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 35. Both arguments are unavailing, 

accordingly, I will recommend that the motion be denied. 

The Ninth Circuit has consistently read 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to limit its application to 

prisoners, i.e., individuals who are in custody as a result of a conviction or who are being detained 

for allegedly committing a crime. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005)

(“Thus, a civil detainee is not a “prisoner” within the meaning of the PLRA.”) (citations omitted); 

Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that the civil detainee plaintiff was 

Case 2:22-cv-00342-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 04/30/24 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

not a “prisoner” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act). Consequently, because 

plaintiff is a civil detainee, the three strikes bar provided by § 1915(g) does not apply to his filing 

of this action. See Townsend v. Hemela, No. 1:19-cv-01054-NONE-BAM (PC), 2021 WL 

3737467, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021) (denying the defendants’ motion to revoke the 

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status because the plaintiff was a civil detainee and not subject to 

§ 1915(g)’s three strikes bar). 

Defendants’ second argument is thwarted by timing. Defendants contend that on October 

18, 2023, plaintiff was deemed a vexatious litigant by this court. ECF No. 35-1 at 2. Yet, 

plaintiff initiated this action on February 15, 2022, well before he was declared a vexatious 

litigant. ECF No. 1. Indeed, the consequences of being a vexatious litigant is a limit on a 

litigant’s ability to file an action. If a litigant is declared vexatious, a court may impose pre-filing

restrictions. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990); L.R. 151(b). I am 

unaware of, and defendants have not cited, any authority authorizing this court to retroactively 

revoke a litigant’s in forma pauperis status because he was later declared a vexatious litigant.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s 

in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 35, be denied. 

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, 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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 2:22-cv-00342-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 04/30/24 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00342-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 3