Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01549/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01549-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL HARPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAMMY CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-1549 EPG (PC)

ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S IFP 

APPLICATION BE DENIED AND THAT

PLAINTIFF BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE 

FILING FEE IN FULL IF HE WANTS TO 

PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION

(ECF No. 2)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Daniel Harper is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. 

(ECF No. 1). On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in 

this action. (ECF No. 2).

Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this

action and because he was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 

it, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $405 filing fee in full if he wants 

to proceed with the action.

I. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Pertinent here is the so called “three strikes provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this 

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

Case 1:24-cv-01549-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 5
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

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). In determining whether a dismissal counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g),

“the reviewing court looks to the dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it. . . . This 

means that the procedural mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while 

informative, is not dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal 

citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has “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.” Id. (alteration in original).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Strikes

Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The Court takes judicial 

notice1of the following four cases, each of which counts as a “strike”: (1) Harper v. Sacramento 

County Sheriff, No. 2:07-cv-00748-ALA (E.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed with leave to amend 

for failure to state a claim; case dismissed on November 14, 2007, for failure to file an amended 

complaint); (2) Harper v. Wilcox, No. 2:07-cv-01158-LKK-KJM (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on 

January 28, 2008, for failure to state a claim); (3) Harper v. Costa, No. 2:07-cv-2149-LKK-DAD 

(E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on August 31, 2009, for failure to state a claim); and (4) Harper v. 

Morgan, No. 2:08-cv-2526-GGH (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on June 16, 2009, for failure to state 

a claim).

Moreover, Plaintiff has previously been denied IFP status by at least two other courts

because of his three-striker status. See Harper v. Marquez, No. 2:24-cv-1194-DJC-SCR (ECF No. 

13); Harper v. Powell, 2:24-cv-1343-TLN-AC (ECF No. 17).

B. Imminent Danger

Because Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this action, Plaintiff is 

precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was 

1

“In particular, a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases . . . .” United States v. 

Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:24-cv-01549-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 5
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

filed, in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 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.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). 

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

or hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, No. 1:16-CV-01421-LJO-GSA (PC), 2016 WL 5815905, 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff 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). “[V]ague and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are 

insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). 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). 

Additionally, there is a nexus requirement between the danger alleged and the claims 

asserted: “Thus, in order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes 

prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to 

unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 

692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger 

determination, the Court must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1055.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that, from September 2024 to November 2024, Plaintiff 

“submitted a numerous amount of inmate appeals (602s).”2(ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges he 

was not sent the appeal responses in time, violating California Code of Regulations. (Id. at 6). 

Plaintiff references numerous exhibits, none of which are attached to the complaint. 

Such allegations are insufficient to show that there is a real and imminent threat to 

Plaintiff’s personal safety under the standards described above. None of these allegations fairly 

implicate an ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood 

of imminent serious physical injury to Plaintiff. While Plaintiff checked the box “excessive force 

2 Plaintiff’s complaint is not legible in some places. The above summary reflects the Court’s best attempt 

to summarize Plaintiff’s allegations. 

Case 1:24-cv-01549-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 5
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

by an officer” in the section of the complaint form asking him to identify the issue involved (ECF 

No. 1 at 5), Plaintiff does not describe the use of force incident or when it occurred. Nothing in 

the complaint indicates that by at the time Plaintiff filed his complaint, he was in imminent 

danger of excessive force being used against him. See Driver v. Pohovich, No. 2:22-CV-1672 DB 

P, 2023 WL 2394154, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 

WL 8004324 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2023) (concluding that Plaintiff did not meet the imminent 

danger exception where “[t]here [was] nothing in the complaint that would indicate plaintiff was 

under threat of imminent danger based on the excessive force incidents” alleged in the complaint 

that purportedly occurred about two months before filing the complaint). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff is a “three-striker” and does not appear to have been in 

imminent danger when he filed this action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to 

pay the $405 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with the action.

III. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a District Judge to this 

case.

And IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

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

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff be directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee in 

full if he wants to proceed with this action.

3. Plaintiff be advised that failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in the dismissal 

of this case.

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)(1). Within thirty (30) 

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.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 pages, 

including exhibits. 

//

//

Case 1:24-cv-01549-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff is 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01549-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/10/25 Page 5 of 5