Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01624-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORIO FUNTANILLA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROMAN W. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01624-DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO IMMINENT DANGER

EXCEPTION

(DOC. 1)

Plaintiff Gregorio Funtanilla, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff contends that he should be allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a

civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Court records reveal that Plaintiff has accumulated at least three dismissals for

frivolousness or failure to state a claim as of March 14, 2001. The Court takes judicial notice of

the following cases that qualify as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): Funtanilla v. R.

Tieman, et al., Case No. 2:92-CV-01017-LKK-JFM (E. D. Cal.) (dismissed 10/08/1992 as

frivolous); Funtanilla v. Duke-Bray, et al., Case No. 3:98-CV-03779-TEH (N. D. Cal.)

1

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 4 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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

(dismissed 01/06/1999 for failure to state a claim); Funtanilla v. Ninevella, et al., Case No. 1:98-

CV-06365-AWI-SMS PC (E. D. Cal.) (dismissed 03/14/2001 for failure to state a claim);

Plaintiff thus is not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this action unless Plaintiff can

demonstrate Plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).

“[T]he 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.” Andrews v.

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). To meet the imminent danger requirement, the

threat or prison condition must be real and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330

(7th Cir. 2003), and the danger of serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is

filed, Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 238 F.3d 307, 313-14 (3d Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185

F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998).

Here, Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious

injury. (Compl. Doc. 2.) Plaintiff contends that he needs two teeth extractions. (Compl. 4.) 

Plaintiff contends that one tooth is broken in half, and another is loose on both sides, exposing

the nerve. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that his gums are infected under these teeth and the infection

is spreading. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that as of September 30, 2010, the prison is under

lockdown because of an inmate assault. (Id.) Plaintiff has made numerous requests to receive

dental care, but he has not received it. (Id.) Plaintiff was informed by dental staff that there are

inmates on the waiting list before him and a shortage of dental staff. (Id.) Plaintiff contends he

will lose his whole jaw to gum disease, and has lost six pounds. (Id.) Plaintiff was forced to

exchange food for ibuprofen pills from other inmates. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged imminent danger of a serious physical injury. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 22, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 4 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 2