Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01148-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARL KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN OF KERN VALLEY STATE 

PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-01148-KES-GSA (PC)

ORDER REGARDING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING PAYMENT 

OF THE FILING FEE WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

(Docs. 2, 7)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 

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

On September 26, 2024, plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Doc. 2. On October 9, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to deny 

plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiff had not filed a six-month prison 

trust fund account and because he has at least three dismissals that constitute a strike under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Doc. 7. The magistrate judge noted that plaintiff had previously been 

identified as a three strikes litigant, Kelly v. Sao, No. 1:19-cv-00681-LJO-BAM. Id. at 2. The 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

Case 1:24-cv-01148-KES-GSA Document 8 Filed 12/13/24 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

2

were due within fourteen (14) days. Id. at 7. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. Plaintiff has at least three dismissal that constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

For example, Kelly v. Gyorkey, No. 2:11-cv-02142 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) 

(dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to a state claim); Kelly v. Elit, No. 1:18-cv00019 DAD SAB (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2018) (dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim); 

Kelly v. Sao, No. 1:18-cv-00484 DAD EPG (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018) (federal claims dismissed

with prejudice for failure to state a claim) constitute strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

The magistrate judge correctly reasoned that plaintiff does not qualify for the imminent 

danger exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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 that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued October 9, 2024 (Doc. 7), are ADOPTED 

as set forth above;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED, and

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 

filing fee of $405.00 if he wishes to proceed with his action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

4. Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in 

the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01148-KES-GSA Document 8 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2