Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01560/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01560-0/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

ZANE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GUTIERREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:14-cv-01560-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL 

WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff Zane Hubbard is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring 

a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had three or more 

actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which 

Case 1:14-cv-01560-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/27/14 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

relief maybe granted.1 To meet the imminent danger exception, the complaint must 

plausibly allege “that the prisoner faced „imminent danger of serious physical injury‟ at 

the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff asserts various violations of his rights stemming from a physical 

altercation between Plaintiff and correctional officers on May 6, 2014. The Complaint

makes brief and vague reference to safety concerns related to Plaintiff‟s placement in 

the Security Housing Unit or Sensitive Needs Yard. However, Plaintiff articulates no 

specific facts indicating that any named Defendant is subjecting him to imminent danger 

from any particular and specific harm. The Complaint addresses one event that 

occurred in May of this year and subsequent difficulty exhausting administrative 

remedies. There are no plausible allegations that Plaintiff was in imminent danger when 

this action was filed. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1057 n. 11 (A prisoner fails to meet the 

exception where claims of imminent danger are conclusory.).

The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff‟s in forma pauperis application should be 

denied because he accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent danger of 

serious physical harm at the time this action was initiated. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff 

should be provided with the opportunity to pay the filing fee in full.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

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

2. Plaintiff should be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twentyone days of adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, and

3. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of 

adoption of these Findings and Recommendations, all pending motions should be 

terminated and this action dismissed without prejudice.

 

1

 The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases that qualify as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g): Hubbard v. Mendes, 1:13-cv-01078-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed March 17, 2014, for failure 

to state a claim; no appeal filed); Hubbard v. Lua, 1:14-cv-00351-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed May 6, 

2014, for failure to state a claim; no appeal filed); and Hubbard v. Flores, 1:13-cv-01056-AWI-BAM (E.D. 

Cal.) (dismissed June 30, 2014 for failure to state a claim; no appeal filed). These strikes were final prior 

to the date Plaintiff filed this action. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 1:14-cv-01560-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/27/14 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

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 

any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such 

a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01560-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 10/27/14 Page 3 of 3