Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01067-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-1067 MCE KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

On July 28, 2016, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis be denied on grounds that plaintiff had three prior actions dismissed which 

qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 24.) These findings and 

recommendations stated: 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 generally permits any court of the United 

States to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit 

without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit 

indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 46 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 6
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

judgment in a civil action or proceeding 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff has had three prior actions dismissed which qualify 

as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): 1) Sierra v. Grannis, 1:08-cv0887 RTB CAB (E.D. Cal.), dismissed as frivolous on February 21, 

2009 (ECF No. 18); 2) Sierra v. United States District Court, 1: 10-

cv-1019 SKO (E.D. Cal.), dismissed for failing to state any claims 

on February 8, 2011 (ECF No. 28); 3) Sierra v. Moon, 1:11-cv1214 LJO MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal.), dismissed as frivolous and for 

failing to state a claim on July 3, 2012 (ECF No. 32). 

The imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

applies only if it is clear that the danger existed when the complaint 

was filed. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 

2007). The danger must be real and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 

352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003), and must be ongoing. Andrews, 

493 F.3d at 1056. Allegations of imminent danger that are overtly 

speculative or fanciful may be rejected. Id. at 1057 n.11. For the 

following reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has not met 

the imminent injury exception. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to understand. However, it 

appears that plaintiff alleges that prison officials have failed to treat 

him for lower back problems. Plaintiff appears to allege that he 

suffered these back problems as long ago as 1985. Plaintiff raised 

similar, if not the same claims, in Sierra v. Moon, 1:11-cv-1214 

LJO MJS (PC). In that action, plaintiff alleged that defendants 

planned to move him from an acute care hospital housing unit to a 

housing unit with a lower level of care and failed to diagnose his 

alleged paraplegia as other than a faked disability. (See 1:11-cv1214 LJO MJS (PC) at ECF No. 16 at 2.) In 1:11-cv-1214 LJO 

MJS (PC), plaintiff also claimed that he suffered from paraplegia 

from injuries, possibly sustained in 1982, leaving him with a 

painful nerve disorder unnoticed by defendants who wrongly 

accused him of having an acute mental disorder. (Id. at 3.)

The district court in 1:11-cv-1214 LJO MJS (PC) found that 

plaintiff’s claims alleging an untreated back injury were frivolous 

because they were combined with patently frivolous claims alleging 

plaintiff’s legal ownership of Nike business worldwide, etc. 

[Footnote 1.] (Id. at 3-5.) While plaintiff’s instant complaint does 

not include other patently frivolous claims, the fact that plaintiff 

raised the same claims regarding his alleged back problems in 1:11-

cv-1214 LJO MJS (PC) indicates that plaintiff is not in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. For these reasons, the 

undersigned finds that plaintiff has not met the imminent danger 

exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 46 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 6
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

[Footnote 1: In his application to proceed in forma pauperis 

filed in the instant action, plaintiff alleges that he owns 

several professional sports teams including the San 

Francisco Giants, the Oakland Raiders, the San Jose Sharks 

and the Sacramento Kings. (ECF No. 15 at 2.) Because 

these claims are clearly frivolous, they are disregarded. In 

any event, the Certificate of Funds Form certified by prison 

officials in support of plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis states that plaintiff has no money in his 

prison trust account. (Id. at 3.)]

(ECF No. 24 at 1-3.)

On August 23, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF 

No. 26.) Attached as an exhibit to the objections was a form titled “Disability Placement 

Program Verification.” (Id. at 65.) This document indicated that plaintiff was allowed an 

“intermittent wheelchair,” meaning that he may use it outside of his cell only. (Id.) Plaintiff had 

written on this document that Correctional Officer Walker handed him this document on April 13, 

2016. (Id.) 

Also attached as exhibits to the objections were documents indicating that plaintiff had 

been a full-time wheelchair user for several years. For example, plaintiff attached a form dated 

November 23, 2011, stating that he was a full-time wheelchair user. (Id. at 51.) Thus, it appeared 

that plaintiff may have been allowed to use the wheelchair in his cell prior to April 13, 2016.

On September 1, 2016, the undersigned issued an order finding that a claim by plaintiff 

challenging the denial of a wheelchair for in-cell use may meet the imminent injury exception to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) if plaintiff suffered a serious risk of harm, or had suffered serious harm, as a 

result of not being able to use his wheelchair in his cell. (ECF No. 38.) For that reason, the 

undersigned vacated the July 28, 2016 findings and recommendations and granted plaintiff leave 

to file an amended complaint raising his claim alleging denial of access to a wheelchair for in-cell 

use. (Id.)

On December 16, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 36.) The 

amended complaint is difficult to understand. Plaintiff appeared to allege that he did not have 

access to a wheelchair for in-cell use and that his bed was no longer located near his sink.

On December 23, 2016, the undersigned issued an order stating that he could not 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 46 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 6
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

determine from the amended complaint whether plaintiff met the imminent injury exception to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 38.) Accordingly, the undersigned directed Supervising Deputy 

Attorney General Monica Anderson to file a status report addressing plaintiff’s access to a 

wheelchair for in cell use and whether plaintiff’s sink in his cell was near his bed. (ECF No. 38.) 

On January 17, 2017, the California Attorney General’s Office filed a response to the 

December 23, 2016 order. (ECF No. 44.) Attached to this order is the declaration of T. 

Weinholdt, an Associate Warden and the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) Coordinator at 

the California Health Care Facility, where plaintiff is housed. Deputy Warden Weinholdt states, 

in relevant part, 

3. Currently, Mr. Sierra, who is part of the Disability Placement 

Program under the Armstrong class action is designated DPW 

(wheelchair dependent). Inmates with a DPW designation are 

prescribed a wheelchair for full-time use both within and outside 

the assigned cell. I have been informed that Mr. Sierra does have 

his wheelchair in his cell.

4. Mr. Sierra is currently in a Correctional Treatment Center 

(“CTC”) cell that contains a sink and is ADA compliant. The CTC 

is a licensed health-care facility which provides inpatient healthcare 

services to those who do not require a general acute care level of 

basic services, but who are in need of professionally supervised 

health care. In the CTC, Mr. Sierra has access to health care 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week. In addition, while in the CTC, a 

patient’s condition is re-evaluated on a regular basis by their health 

care provider.

5. As to Mr. Sierra’s bed and its location, Mr. Sierra’s cell has a 

regular hospital bed, which is not bolted to the ground. Although 

this bed can be moved, I am informed that the bed should not be 

moved so that it blocks the door or impedes access to the cell. 

Blocking the door prevents or impedes staff from responding to an 

emergency within his cell. There is also concern of a fire hazard 

and potential electrical accidents. I am informed that Mr. Sierra has 

moved his bed around and it blocks the door or presents other 

safety hazards. As such, when Mr. Sierra has moved the bed in any 

way that would impede access or pose a safety concerns, staff 

would have told him not to do so for safety reasons.

(Id. at 5-6.) 

For the following reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff does not meet the imminent 

danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Prisoners qualify for the imminent danger exception 

based on the alleged conditions at the time the complaint is filed. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 46 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 6
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

F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). Based on the exhibit attached to plaintiff’s objections, it appears 

that plaintiff was denied access to a wheelchair in his cell for some period of time. However, 

plaintiff does not allege that he suffered any injury as a result of not having access to an in-cell 

wheelchair. The record also suggests that plaintiff has suffered no injury related to the location of 

his bed in his cell. Because the claims of imminent danger are based on “less obviously injurious 

practices,” which are unsupported by allegations of harm, the undersigned finds that plaintiff does 

not meet the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

F.3d 1047, 1057 n.11 (9th Cir. 2007) (assertions of imminent danger of less obviously injurious 

practices may be rejected as overly speculative or fanciful, when they are supported by 

implausible or untrue allegations that the ongoing practice has produced past harm). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied.1 

Until the issue of plaintiff’s filing fee is finally resolved, the undersigned orders that all 

other pending motions filed by plaintiff be vacated. These motions may be reinstated following 

resolution of the filing fee issue, if appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following motions are vacated: 

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16), plaintiff’s motions for injunctive 

relief (ECF Nos. 17, 18), plaintiff’s motions to amend (ECF Nos. 19, 36), plaintiff’s motion for 

law library access (ECF No. 21), plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 37);

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF No. 15, 35) be denied; and plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

 

1

 If plaintiff is again denied access to an in-cell wheelchair, he shall notify the court. 

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 46 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: January 26, 2017

Si1067.ifp(2)

Case 2:16-cv-01067-MCE-KJN Document 46 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 6