Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01248-5/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 TYRONE FLEMINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRAY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01248 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS‟

MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS BE GRANTED

[ECF No. 16]

OBJECTION DEADLINE: THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Kevin T. Flemings (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on August 8, 2014. 

On July 17, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff‟s Complaint and found that it stated the 

following claims: (1) violation of Plaintiff‟s procedural due process rights by Defendants Gray, 

Timmons, and White; and (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and 

unusual punishment against Defendants Gray, Timmons, and White. On August 24, 2015, all 

other claims and defendants were dismissed. On August 20, 2015, the Court directed the U.S. 

Marshal Service to serve the complaint on Defendants. 

On November 3, 2015, Defendants filed the instant 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 November 23, 2015. Defendants filed a reply to the opposition on December 14, 2015. 

Case 1:14-cv-01248-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/17/15 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. Plaintiff contends 

that none of the five cases cited by Defendants qualify as strikes. Defendants first cite the case of 

Flemings v. Herndon, et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-2018 (C.D. Cal. 2010).1 This case was dismissed 

with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff admits that he “simply did not frame his 

complaint . . . to state a claim.” (Pl.‟s Opp‟n at 4.) The case clearly qualifies as a strike. 

 Defendants next cite to Flemings v. Ryan, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-4186-GAF-FMO (C.D. 

Cal. 2006), which was also dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff argues that this case is 

related to the case above and should not count as a strike. Nevertheless, the case is a separate 

action that was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff admits that he “simply did not know 

how to file or frame a complaint which amounted to stating a case which relief could be made.” 

(Pl.‟s Opp‟n at 4.) This case also clearly qualifies as a strike. 

 The next case cited to by Defendants is Flemings v. Larson, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-6645-

UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal. 2007). In this case, Plaintiff was denied in forma pauperis status because 

the claim was found to be “legally and/or patently frivolous,” Plaintiff “fail[ed] to state a claim, 

and “certain defendants” were immune from suit. Plaintiff contends the case should not count as a 

strike because the case was dismissed on the basis of immunity. As Defendants correctly argue, 

regardless of the fact the case was dismissed on the basis of immunity, the case was also dismissed 

 

1

 The Court may take judicial notice of court records in other cases. United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 

(9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 1:14-cv-01248-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/17/15 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

for failure to state a claim and as legally and patently frivolous, both of which are bases for 

considering the case to count as a strike. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Next, Defendants cite to Flemings v. Larson, et al., Case No. 07-56793 (9th Cir. 2008) as 

another case in which Plaintiff‟s in forma pauperis status was denied because the claims raised on 

appeal were insubstantial, and therefore frivolous. Defendants correctly note that a dismissal of an 

appeal raising questions considered insubstantial is equivalent to a frivolous appeal. Martini v. 

U.S. Dep‟t of Justice, 303 Fed.Appx. 477, 478 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Stockton, 291 

Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the case is considered a strike. 

Finally, Defendants cite to Flemings v. Larson, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-0284 (2008) which 

was dismissed for attempting to bring a claim against immune defendants and for failure to 

prosecute. Defendants persuasively argue that the dismissal of Plaintiff‟s lawsuit against immune 

defendants is equivalent to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal which is considered a strike. In Knapp v. 

Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013), the Ninth Circuit stated: “We have interpreted the 

final form of dismissal under the statute, „fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted,‟ to be essentially synonymous with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal. 

Therefore, the case constitutes Plaintiff‟s fifth strike. 

Based on the above, Defendants are correct that Plaintiff has filed five actions or appeals 

that were dismissed on the grounds of being frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim. 

Plaintiff has more than met the requirement for revocation of in forma pauperis status under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01248-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/17/15 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

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 makes allegations concerning events which took place at Wasco 

State Prison in April of 2014. At the time he filed the instant suit, Plaintiff was housed at a 

different facility, Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. There is nothing in the 

complaint which indicates Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm at the time he 

filed suit. In addition, the confiscation of his Nike shoes did not result in a continuing practice by 

Defendants that has injured him. Plaintiff contends that he has suffered pain from the 

confiscation, but Plaintiff has not pled that Defendants have prevented him from purchasing 

orthopedic shoes. Moreover, the confiscation of his Nike shoes does not amount to a claim of 

imminent danger. Therefore, Plaintiff does not meet the imminent danger exception. 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g), and was not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury at the time he filed suit. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant‟s motion to revoke Plaintiff‟s in 

forma pauperis status be GRANTED, and Plaintiff be REQUIRED to pay the filing fee. 

 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 

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: December 16, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-01248-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 4