Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068-0/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

LEWIS ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

XAVIER BECERRA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00068-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED

(ECF No. 2)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lewis Anderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 14, 2020. (ECF No. 1.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, filed on January 14, 2020.

1

 (ECF No. 2.) 

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) was enacted “to curb frivolous 

prisoner complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 

 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff improperly submitted his application to proceed in forma pauperis on an “AO 240 

(Rev. 07/10) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form),” rather than on 

the required “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner” form, which authorizes removal of proceeds 

from a plaintiff’s prisoner trust account if IFP is granted. (ECF No. 2.) Since IFP is being denied, the Court sees no 

need to require the necessary authorization from the plaintiff, hence, requiring plaintiff to complete the required form 

for his situation. However, if IFP is ever granted, Plaintiff will be required to effectuate that consent to remove 

proceeds from his prisoner trust account before IFP can be fully granted.

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/17/20 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

2011). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that: “In 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.” Therefore, if a 

prisoner has incurred three or more “strikes” (i.e., three or more cases that were dismissed on the 

grounds that the cases were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted) before filing a new civil action, the prisoner is precluded from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in the new civil action unless the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the 

prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time the complaint was filed. 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007); see Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 

1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining that, to qualify for the imminent danger exception under § 

1915(g), an inmate must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a 

pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury[]”). 

II.

DISCUSSION

Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff has incurred three or more “strikes” under § 1915(g) 

prior to filing the instant civil action. The Court take judicial notice of the following United 

States District Court cases2: (1) Anderson v. City of Riverside, No. 5:11-cv-01009-UA-MLG 

(C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on July 15, 2011 as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim); 

(2) Anderson v. City of Riverside, No. 5:11-cv-01148-UA-MLG (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

August 1, 2011 as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim); and (3) Anderson v. U.S. 

Dist. Ct., No. 3:11-cv-01680-BTM-JMA (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed on November 7, 2011 as 

frivolous). See Harris v. Harris, 935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal on 

immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to state a claim where the immunity defense 

is clear on the face of the complaint); Washington v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 

 

2 The Court takes judicial notice of these cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2). See United States v. 

Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007); Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 

2005); U.S. el rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/17/20 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

(9th Cir. 2016) (stating that a dismissal under Heck qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g) “for 

failure to state a claim when Heck’s bar to relief is obvious from the face of the complaint, and 

the entirety of the complaint is dismissed for a qualifying reason under the PLRA[]”). The Court 

also takes judicial notice of the following United States Court of Appeals cases: (1) Anderson v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 12-55308 (9th Cir.) (dismissed on May 7, 2012 for failure to prosecute and 

failure to pay the filing fee, following a denial of in forma pauperis status on the ground that the 

appeal was frivolous); and (2) Anderson v. City of Riverside, No. 12-55439 (9th Cir.) (dismissed 

on July 12, 2012 for failure to pay the filing fee, following a denial of in forma pauperis status on 

the ground that the appeal was frivolous). See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 

2017) (“[W]hen we review a dismissal to determine whether it counts as a strike, the style of the 

dismissal or the procedural posture is immaterial. Instead, the central question is whether the 

dismissal rang the PLRA bells of frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim.” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis must be denied unless his complaint makes a plausible allegation that he faced 

“imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he filed his complaint on January 

14, 2020. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-56.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on January 27, 2016, Defendant Wilson went 

before the California State Prison, Corcoran classification committee, removed Plaintiff’s 

conviction charge from inflicting a corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant that resulted in a 

traumatic condition, and replaced the conviction charge with three false and fraudulent charges of 

attempted murder, street gang activity, and transporting. (ECF No. 1, at 20.) Second, Plaintiff 

pleads that, in March 2016, Defendant Cantu increased Plaintiff’s disciplinary loss of credits from 

30 days to 90 days because Plaintiff exercised his constitutional right to have Defendant Cantu 

perform their work assignment duties. (Id. at 23-24.) However, while Plaintiff alleges in a 

conclusory fashion that he has been, and will continue to be, irreparably injured by the conduct of 

the Defendants, Plaintiff has not pled any allegations demonstrating that he faced imminent 

danger of serious physical injury at the time Plaintiff filed his complaint. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1056-57; see White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating that “vague 

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/17/20 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

and utterly conclusory assertions” of harm are insufficient to establish imminent danger of serious 

physical harm under § 1915(g)). Therefore, since Plaintiff has not satisfied the imminent danger 

exception to three-strikes rule of § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

must be denied. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, Plaintiff must pre-pay the $400.00 

filing fee in full.

III.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 

Fresno District Judge to this action.

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with 

this action.

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, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” 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: January 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/17/20 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

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 4 Filed 01/17/20 Page 5 of 5