Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01556-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM NATHANIEL 

WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01556-AWI-JLT (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Docs. 2, 6, 7)

Plaintiff William Nathaniel Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 7, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), because 

Plaintiff has three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g) and fails to show that he is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.1(Doc. 6.) In finding that Plaintiff has three strikes, 

the magistrate judge took judicial notice of three of Plaintiff’s prior cases that were dismissed on 

the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, and/or failed to state a claim: (1) Washington v. 

City of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09375-VAP-PJW (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on August 6, 

2015, as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim); (2) Washington v. Diamond, No. 

2:18-cv-05883-VAP-PJW (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on July 18, 2018, for failure to state a claim); 

and (3) Washington v. Lewis, No. 2:16-cv-03041-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on October 

24, 2018, for failure to state a claim). (Doc. 6 at 2.)

 

1 Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on November 14, 2019. (Doc. 7.) This motion is 

identical to Plaintiff’s prior IFP motion, (Doc. 2), except that it includes Plaintiff’s inmate trust account statement.

Case 1:19-cv-01556-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/17/20 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

Plaintiff filed objections on December 11, 2019. (Doc. 10.) In his objections, Plaintiff 

states that the Ninth Circuit held in Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, No. 13-

56647, that Washington v. City of Los Angeles, et al., supra, does not count as strike under 

section 1915(g), and thus the magistrate judge erred in counting it as a strike. (Doc. 10 at 2-3.) 

However, Plaintiff confuses Washington v. City of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:12-cv-07429-UAPJW (“Washington I”), with Washington v. City of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09375-VAPPJW (“Washington II”). The Ninth Circuit held that, because the district court dismissed 

Washington I under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the dismissal did not trigger a strike. 

Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2016). 

However, the district court did not dismiss Washington II pursuant to Younger. (Compare 

Washington II, Doc. 11, with Washington I, Doc. 2.) Because the court dismissed Washington II

on the grounds that it was “[f]rivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim,” (see Washington II, 

Doc. 11), the dismissal counts as a strike.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 7, 2019, (Doc. 6) are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docs. 2, 7), are DENIED; and,

3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the 

filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01556-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2