Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01019/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01019-3/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

MARCUS BRENT FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMAN SAMADANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS AND ORDERING 

PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE

Doc. 9

Plaintiff Marcus Brent Fields is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. section 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 16, 2024, plaintiff initiated this action in the United States District Court for 

the Central District of California. Doc. 1. On August 19, 2024, the clerk of the court for the 

Central District informed plaintiff that he needed to pay the filing fee in full or submit a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis to proceed with his case. Doc. 3. On August 29, 2024, following 

transfer to this Court from the Central District, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations finding plaintiff ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis and recommending 

plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full to proceed. Doc. 9. Specifically, the findings and 

recommendations find that plaintiff has accumulated more than three “strikes” and that he has 

failed to demonstrate that he meets the imminent danger exception under 28 U.S.C. section 

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/03/25 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

1915(g). Id. Plaintiff filed timely objections on September 16, 2024. Doc. 12. 

Plaintiff’s objections do not address the magistrate judge’s analysis. See id. Plaintiff’s 

objections mostly appear to argue that he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to bringing 

this action. Doc. 12 at 1-2. While exhausting administrative remedies is a prerequisite to 

bringing suit in federal court, whether plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies has no 

bearing on the analysis of the findings and recommendations. The magistrate judge’s

recommendation that plaintiff be denied in forma pauperis status was based on plaintiff’s prior 

three “strikes” and his failure to demonstrate that he met the imminent danger exception under 28 

U.S.C. section 1915(g).

Plaintiff also asks the Court to “keep [his] case open [until] it get[s] resolved” and he gets 

“[his] CPAP back if acc[u]rate test says.” Id. at 1. However, the findings and recommendations 

do not recommend dismissal of plaintiff’s case; they recommend that plaintiff not be allowed to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Though the Court recognizes that “the denial of IFP status effectively 

. . . denies many indigent prisoners access to the courts,” plaintiff’s concern that his complaint 

could be dismissed should he ultimately be unable to pay the filing fee does not undermine the 

findings and recommendations’ conclusion that plaintiff does not qualify for IFP status. Harris v. 

Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up).

To the extent plaintiff is asking that the Court delay action on his IFP status because 

future test results may indicate that he has a medical need for a CPAP machine, the Court cannot 

evaluate his IFP eligibility based on a hypothetical future need for medical treatment. Plaintiff’s

complaint alleges he suffered harm because about a month after his transfer to Kern Valley State 

Prison he was made to hand over his CPAP machine. However, he attached to his complaint

documentation noting that he was given the CPAP machine pending a March 2023 sleep study

and that the machine was removed after testing revealed he did not have obstructive sleep apnea. 

Doc. 1 at 6, 15.

As the findings and recommendations correctly note, the relevant inquiry is whether 

plaintiff faced imminent danger at the time that he filed his complaint. See Doc. 9 at 3 (citing 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)). “The [imminent danger] exception's 

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/03/25 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

use of the present tense, combined with its concern only with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the 

lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception applies if the danger existed at the time the prisoner 

filed the complaint.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053. Nearly all of plaintiff’s allegations regarding 

the harm he allegedly suffered are in the past tense, and the findings and recommendations

correctly reasoned that plaintiff does not qualify for the imminent danger exception under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Though “[u]nder certain facts, it is possible that a plaintiff’s sleep apnea could 

be so severe and the need for a CPAP machine could be so urgent that a plaintiff might be in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury,” see Abordo v. Dept. of Justice, Civil No. 24-00233 

MWJS-WRP, 2024 WL 3618659, at *2 (D. Haw. Aug. 1, 2024), plaintiff’s allegations do not 

meet this bar.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis and 

is required to pay the filing fee in full before proceeding any further with this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued August 29, 2024, Doc. 9, are ADOPTED

in full; 

2. Plaintiff is PRECLUDED from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g); and,

3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within 30 days of the date of 

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 01/03/25 Page 3 of 3