Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-5/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

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. ROMERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-02074 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT

WADDLE’S AND CASTELLANOS’ 

MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS BE DENIED

[ECF No. 29]

OBJECTION DEADLINE: THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 26, 2012. On 

November 1, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. 

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On December 2, 

2014, the Court screened the FAC and determined that service was appropriate on Defendants 

Waddle and Castellanos. On January 13, 2015, the Court directed the U.S. Marshal Service to 

serve the FAC on Defendants Waddle and Castellanos. On March 25, 2015, Defendants Waddle 

and Castellanos filed an answer to the FAC. 

On April 8, 2015, Defendants Waddle and Castellanos filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s 

in forma pauperis status because Plaintiff has had at least three prior federal actions dismissed on 

the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an 

opposition on May 29, 2015. Defendants filed a reply to the opposition on June 4, 2015.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 40 Filed 06/09/15 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

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) 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.

The language of section 1915(g) is clear: a dismissal on the ground that an action is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim counts as a strike.

In this case, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits, and at least 

three have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. Defendants cite the 

following cases: Bryant v. Pacheco, et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-1306 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Bryant v.

Briones-Colman, et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-1460 (C.D. Cal. 2009); and Bryant v. Hanks, et al., Case 

No. 2:10-cv-3199 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Plaintiff does not dispute that he is subject to § 1915(g) for 

having sustained at least three strikes. He contends, however, that he was under imminent danger 

of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint, and therefore he should be entitled to 

in forma pauperis status.

As noted above, the PLRA provides that a prisoner with three strikes cannot use IFP status 

to “bring a civil action . . . unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “[T]he availability of the exception turns on the conditions a 

prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.” Andrews v. 

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). “[T]he exception applies if the complaint makes 

a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the 

time of filing.” Id. at 1055. Plaintiff must allege an ongoing danger in order to meet the 

imminency requirement. Id. at 1056. “[A] prisoner who alleges that prison officials continue with 

a practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past will satisfy the ‘ongoing 

danger’ standard and meet the imminence prong of the three-strikes exception.” Id. at 1056-57. 

Allegations that are overly speculative or fanciful may be rejected. Id. at 1057 n.11.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that at the time of filing he was under constant threats of 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 40 Filed 06/09/15 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

violence and death from Defendants, and other correctional officers which he refers to as the 

“green wall gang of correctional officers.” He contends that these threats were a result of 

complaints he had filed on these officers. Plaintiff states he had previously been assaulted on 

three occasions by these officers. He states he was assaulted on September 3, 2011, by 

Correctional Officer Mercado when he slammed Plaintiff face first into a steel door while 

handcuffed. He states that on November 9, 2011, he was assaulted again by an Ad Seg officer 

when the officer punched him in the mouth while handcuffed and busted his lip and cracked his 

teeth. He states that on January 29, 2013, he was assaulted by Correctional Officer Truitt who hit 

Plaintiff’s leg with a weapon and caused the leg to become infected. Plaintiff claims these assaults 

were all planned and directed by Defendants as a result of his complaints. Further, Plaintiff states 

he is aware of three previous separate attempts to set him up to be stabbed and killed. Plaintiff 

states that at the time he filed his complaint in December of 2012, Defendant Waddle was 

planning to have him murdered by other inmates. Plaintiff states that other inmates came to him 

and informed him that Defendants had asked them to assault him in an area where he could then 

be shot by staff.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently set forth plausible allegations of threats of 

serious harm in his complaint to show an “ongoing danger.” Further, Plaintiff alleges that he has 

suffered serious injury due to Defendants having him attacked by other officers. The Court finds 

that Plaintiff has met “the imminence prong of the three strikes exception.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1056-57.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has set forth sufficient allegations in 

the complaint to meet the imminent danger prong of the three strikes exception. Accordingly, it is

HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

status be DENIED. 

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)(l). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 40 Filed 06/09/15 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

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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, 772 

F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 40 Filed 06/09/15 Page 4 of 4