Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00060-0/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

RAMELLO RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00060-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS BE DENIED

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ramello Randle (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on December 20, 2024, 

together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The case was transferred to the Eastern District 

of California on January 10, 2025. (ECF No. 3.)

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which 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 

Case 1:25-cv-00060-KES-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/14/25 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

physical injury.”1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that his allegations do not satisfy 

the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047,

1053−55 (9th Cir. 2007). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to Kern 

Valley State Prison on November 13, 2024, where he was advised that because of the crime he 

was charged with he would be placed on closed custody for 5 years, taking away his family visits. 

Plaintiff alleges that this is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

and violates his right of association under the First Amendment. Plaintiff also alleges that he is 

being discriminated against because there are dozens of other prisoners with similar charges as 

him who are not placed on closed custody and get family visits. (ECF No. 1.)

Based on the allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff has failed to allege that he was in any 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiff has not 

satisfied the exception from the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff must 

pay the $405.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate this action.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this action.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $405.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this 

action.

* * *

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: (1) Randle v. Contra Costa Cty. 

Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. 3:23-cv-05456-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed on April 22, 2024 for failure to file an amended 

complaint following a screening order dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim); (2) Randle v. Contra Costa 

Cty. Conflicts Panel, Case No. 3:24-cv-00323-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 28, 2024 for failure to state a 

claim); (3) Randle v. Contra Costa Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. 3:24-cv-02099-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed on July 

23, 2024 for failure to file an amended complaint following a screening order dismissing complaint for failure to state 

a claim).

Case 1:25-cv-00060-KES-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/14/25 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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 

fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by CM/ECF document 

and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 

15-page limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s 

factual findings” 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: January 14, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:25-cv-00060-KES-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 3