Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01321/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01321-1/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

KOHEN DIALLO E. UHURU,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL E. CUEVA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1321 WBS DB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action. Plaintiff seeks relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 

(“RLUIPA”). Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 

No. 2) and motion for default judgment (ECF No. 10). For the reasons set forth below, the 

undersigned will recommend the motions be denied.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

I. In Forma Pauperis Statue

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) permits a federal court to authorize 

the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who 

submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . [in forma 

paupers] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 

Case 2:23-cv-01321-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 04/09/24 Page 1 of 6
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

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).

This “three strikes rule” was part of “a variety of reforms designed to filter out the bad 

claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the good.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. 

Ct. 1759, 1762 (2015) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007) (brackets in original)). 

If a prisoner has “three strikes” under § 1915(g), the prisoner is barred from proceeding in forma 

pauperis unless he meets the exception for imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). To meet this exception, the 

complaint of a “three-strikes” prisoner must plausibly allege that the prisoner was faced with 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time his complaint was filed. See Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2015); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055.

II. Has Plaintiff Accrued Three Strikes?

A review of actions filed by plaintiff reveal that plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he was, at the time the complaint was 

filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Judges have previously found that 

plaintiff has accrued at least three strikes. See Uhuru v. Eldridge, No. 2:19-cv-1119 KJN P, 2020 

WL 3100257 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2020); Uhuru v. Paramo, No. 3:17-cv-0960 GPC BGS, 2017 

WL 2312224 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2017).

The court takes judicial notice of those cases and plaintiff’s prior filings described therein.

MCIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986) (A court may take judicial 

notice of its own records and the records of other courts). Those cases include: (1) Diallo v. 

Yarborough, No. 2:03-cv-5401 JVS VBK (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2004) (granting defendants’ motion 

to dismiss and stating, “[t]he allegations in the Complaint [were] insufficient to state a claim 

against each individual defendant . . .”); (2) Diallo v. Moskowitz, No. 2:07-cv-7109 JVS VBK 

(C.D. Cal. June 1, 2009) (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint 

with prejudice); (3) Diallo v. Greenman, No. 2:07-cv-2937 JVS VBK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009) 

Case 2:23-cv-01321-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 04/09/24 Page 2 of 6
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

(dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice upon finding the allegations insufficient to 

state a federal civil rights claim). The strikes described all occurred prior to plaintiff’s initiation of 

the present action in 2023.

III. Does Plaintiff Meet the Imminent Danger Exception?

Because plaintiff has accrued three strikes, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in this action unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). The availability of the imminent danger exception turns on the conditions a prisoner 

faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time. See Andrews, 493 F.3d 

at 1053. “[A]ssertions of imminent danger of less obviously injurious practices may be rejected as 

overly speculative or fanciful.” Id. at 1057 n.11.

Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely 

speculative or hypothetical. To meet his burden under § 1915(g), an inmate must provide 

“specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct 

evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 

1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “Vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of harm are insufficient. White v. 

Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). That is, the “imminent danger” exception is 

available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat . . . is real and 

proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Therein, he alleges he suffered 

bodily injury from officers when he was thrown on the floor face down. (Id. at 5.) He was injured 

by staff assault during a cell extraction. (Id.) Plaintiff has suffered retaliation and discrimination 

for filing grievances. (Id.) Plaintiff was put in involuntary isolation in a mental health crisis bed 

when he was not suicidal. (Id.) Plaintiff has suffered “draconian acts of slavery” and malicious 

abuse from arrival at CMF to present day. (Id.) Plaintiff is deprived of sunlight and fresh air 

because pathogens flow through the ventilation system. (Id.) Plaintiff had to sleep in soiled 

clothes for weeks. (Id.) Plaintiff is denied the right to practice his Nubian Hebrew Israelite

religion and denied the designation of “Priest” as a pronoun. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff has to eat kosher 

food instead of “soul food” for plaintiff’s religious diet, which is discriminatory. (Id. at 6-7.) 

Case 2:23-cv-01321-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 04/09/24 Page 3 of 6
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

Plaintiff is denied in-cell musical worship. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff has been denied incontinence 

supplies, topical cream for chronic pain, pain medication, prescription eyewear, requested CPAP 

machine and a cane. (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 

7)

At the outset, the court notes plaintiff’s complaint contains many conclusory statements

that defendants violated his rights without providing factual allegations indicating what actions 

defendants took that caused those rights violations. As stated above, vague and conclusory 

assertions of harm are insufficient to meet the imminent danger standard. White, 157 F.3d at 

1231-32.

The court also notes that plaintiff has raised similar allegations in prior cases, and it was 

determined that such allegations were insufficient to meet the imminent danger exception. See

Uhuru v. Mancusi, No. 2:20-cv-2088 KJM KJN P, 2021 WL 2622087, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 

2021) (finding allegations of lack of fresh air and outdoor exercise, together with his claims that 

he was denied the ability to practice his Nubian Hebrew Israelite religion were insufficient to 

meet imminent danger exception), findings and recommendations adopted in full, 2021 WL 

4442745 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2021); Uhuru v. Rao, No. 2:20-cv-1613 DB P, 2021 WL 1884997, 

at *2 (May 11, 2021) (finding allegations that defendants prevented him from practicing his 

religion by denying him a single cell and the ability to fast during holy fast days were insufficient 

to meet imminent danger exception); Uhuru v. Velasquez, No. 2:20-cv-1267 JAM DB P, 2021 

WL 619768, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan 6, 2021) (vague and conclusory allegations related to practice of 

religion, solitary in-cell worship, denial of outdoor exercise insufficient to meet imminent danger 

exception).

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding soiled clothes and denial of hygiene items and 

medications are also not sufficient to meet the imminent danger exception. Plaintiff has not 

explained how any of the deprivations placed him in danger. See Turner v. California, No. 3:19-

cv-2363 BAAS LL, 2020 WL 804889, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020) (finding plaintiff’s failure 

to “explain how the denial of his right to ‘personal hygiene’ placed him imminent danger” at the 

time he filed the complaint insufficient to meet imminent danger exception).

Case 2:23-cv-01321-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 04/09/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Similarly, plaintiff’s allegations that some of the defendants used excessive force against 

him on a prior unspecified date is not sufficient to meet the imminent danger exception. Taylor v. 

Carter, No. 1:13-cv-1155 SAB (PC), 2014 WL 11774844, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2014) (finding 

plaintiff’s allegations of “excessive force, retaliation, and due process allegations arising from his 

placement and retention in administrative segregation” failed to show plaintiff was in imminent 

danger at the time the complaint was filed); Driver v. Pohovich, No. 2:22-cv-1672 DB P, 2023 

WL 2394154, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2023) (finding allegations of excessive force that occurred 

approximately two months prior to plaintiff filing the complaint failed to meet imminent danger 

exception).

The complaint’s allegations fail to show that plaintiff was in imminent danger at the time 

the complaint was filed in this action. Therefore, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis 

should be denied. Because no defendant has been required to appear, plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment should also be denied.

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:23-cv-01321-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 04/09/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 10) be denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied;

3. The court find plaintiff accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prior to filing 

this action; and

4. The court orders plaintiff to pay the $400 filing fee in order to proceed in this action.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

Assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may result in a waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 

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

Dated: April 8, 2024

DLB7

uhur1321.scrn.3strikes+pi

Case 2:23-cv-01321-WBS-SCR Document 15 Filed 04/09/24 Page 6 of 6