Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00705-0/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

EDJUAN C. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALLADALIO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00705-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS BE DENIED

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Edjuan C. Scott (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on May 20, 2020, 

together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff filed a certified 

copy of his inmate trust account statement on May 21, 2020. (ECF No. 5.)

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which 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

Case 1:20-cv-00705-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 3
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

physical injury.”1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that his allegations do not satisfy 

the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g).2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 

1053−55 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff raises various claims regarding excessive force, failure to 

protect, retaliation, and due process. (ECF No. 1.) All of the named defendants are employees of 

Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to 

have occurred. However, at the time the complaint was filed, Plaintiff was housed at Salinas 

Valley State Prison in Soledad, California. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege that he was in 

any imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint was filed, because he is 

no longer housed at the institution where the violations allegedly occurred and where the 

Defendants are employed. Plaintiff has not satisfied the exception from the three strikes bar 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate 

this action.

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

District Judge to this action.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The motion 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 initial filing fee in full 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 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court Cases: (1) Scott v. Pittsburg Police 

Dep’t, Case No. 5:09-cv-00862-JF (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed May 15, 2009, as duplicative and for failure to state a 

claim); (2) Scott v. Clawson, Case No. 3:09-cv-01751-RS (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed October 18, 2010, for failure to 

state a claim); and (3) Scott v. Beles & Beles Law Firm, Case No. 4:15-cv-01240-DMR (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed June 

9, 2015, for failure to state a claim).

2 The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 1:20-cv-00705-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 3
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

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: May 27, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00705-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 3