Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00997-1/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

HENRY A. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANSAL MANU, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0997 JLT SKO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE

(Docs. 2, 6)

Henry A. Jones seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, asserting violations of 

his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff has 

accrued three or more strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, identifying the following actions that were 

dismissed prior to the filing of this action:

1. Jones v. Macher, No. 1:05-cv-257-OWW-SMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 

for failure to state a claim on May 26, 2005)

2. Jones v. Milligan, No. 1:05-cv-307-SMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim on October 17, 2008)

3. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:15-cv-6797-MWF-PLA (C.D. Cal.) (denying 

IFP and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on 

December 4, 2015)

4. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:16-cv-409-TJH-MRW (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP 

and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on 

January 27, 2016)

5. Jones v. Wu, No. 2:16-cv-2698-DDP-SS (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP and 

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/21/24 Page 1 of 4
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

dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on October 4, 

2016)

6. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:16-cv-7978-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP 

and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on 

November 8, 2016)

7. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:19-cv-7875-GW-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP 

and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on 

November 4, 2019)

8. Jones v. Hailey, No. 3:20-cv-215-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim on August 14, 2020)

9. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 16-56839 (9th Cir.) (appeal dismissed as frivolous 

on June 13, 2017)

(Doc. 6 at 2-3.) Thus, the magistrate judge found “Plaintiff is subject to the section 1915(g) bar.” 

(Id. at 3.) 

In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not satisfy “the imminent danger 

exception.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s alleged “denial of pain medication 

to treat swelling is insufficient to establish Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.” (Id. at 4, citing, e.g., Harris v. Phillips, 2023 WL 5956984, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 

2023) [allegations that “one of the Defendants refused to give him medication for his legs and 

feet” and that “he was denied medication for swollen feet” did not amount to imminent danger of 

serious physical injury].) The magistrate judge observed that while Plaintiff wanted more than 

Tylenol for treatment, his disagreement “with the course of treatment being offered... does not 

amount to an imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Id., citing Fletcher v. Sherman, 2019 

WL 2375148, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019).) Furthermore, the magistrate judge found 

“Plaintiff’s assertion that his legs ‘may’ have to be amputated is purely speculative.” (Id. at 4.) 

Finally, the magistrate judge found, “to the extent Plaintiff relies on issues concerning his 

defibrillator, those claims were the subject of numerous prior lawsuits dismissed by other courts, 

including findings that no imminent danger of serious physical injury was presented.” (Id., citing 

Jones v. Kalinjia, No. 2:23- cv-00186-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal March 5, 2024)). The magistrate judge 

found Plaintiff’s medical conditions “do not present a genuine emergency where time is pressing, 

and a threat that is real and proximate.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/21/24 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and he be directed to pay the filing fee. 

(Id. at 5-6.)

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on September 10, 2024 

(Doc. 7), which were followed by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 8). After the Ninth Circuit 

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 11), Plaintiff again filed a document indicating 

his objections on September 25, 2024 (Doc. 12.) In his objections, Plaintiff indicates that he was 

diagnosed with neuropathy, and this satisfies the “imminent danger” exception. (Doc. 7 at 1, 

citing, Price v. Igbal, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129655 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2021); Hamby v. Parker, 

307 F. Supp. 3d 822 (M.D. Tenn. 2018); Foster v. Ohio D.R.C., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24492 

(S.D. Oh. Feb. 13, 2023); Doss v. Corizon Health Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77042 (N.D. Fl. 

May 11, 2015).) In addition, Plaintiff asserts a belief that denial of his motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis is “in retaliation” for his filing of a civil rights action against Judge Dean 

Pregerson. (Id.) 

Significantly, Plaintiff’s assertion that the Court’s ruling is retaliatory for a complaint 

against Judge Pregerson is unfounded. This Court is in a different district and has no connection 

to his case against Judge Pregerson in the Central District, or Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal to the 

Ninth Circuit. There is clearly no showing of bias by this Court. Rather, this Court limited its 

review of the prior cases—including those against Judge Pregerson—to determine whether the 

dismissals qualified as strikes under Section 1915.

Plaintiff also fails to show that his diagnosis alone of neuropathy supports a conclusion 

that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Although Plaintiff cites several cases in 

which plaintiffs with neuropathy were permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, he fails to explain 

how the cases are like the facts and allegations now before the Court. Indeed, the Court’s review 

of the allegations indicates several of the cases may be distinguished. In Price, Foster, and 

Hambly, the plaintiffs reported their conditions were untreated. See Price, 2021 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 129655, at *8 (holding the plaintiff’s “allegation that he suffers untreated neuropathic 

pain and is at risk of falling is sufficient to support an inference of imminent danger of serious 

physical jury” [emphasis added]); Foster, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24492 at *10 (addressing the 

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/21/24 Page 3 of 4
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

allegation that “prison medical staff have left untreated his chronic pain conditions, which include 

neuropathy” [emphasis added]); Hamby, 307 F.Supp.3d at 826 (addressing allegations that the 

defendants “refused any treatment or medication” for the plaintiff’s “severe neuropathy”). In 

contrast, here, Plaintiff is receiving pain medication, though he disagrees with the treatment 

provided. Distinguishing plaintiffs from those not receiving treatment and those plaintiffs who 

are receiving treatment but believe it is inadequate—such as Plaintiff— is supported by Doss. In 

Doss, the court denied a request to proceed in forma pauperis because the plaintiff was receiving 

medication for his neuropathic pain, though he disagreed with the treatment. See Doss, 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 77042, at *13 (“Taken as a whole, Plaintiff's complaint takes issue with the 

medications he has been provided for neuropathy pain, but that is not a basis for imminent 

danger.”) Consequently, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to show that his neuropathy itself show he 

satisfies the “imminent danger” exception.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the 

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the 

Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued August 30, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the full $405 filing fee for this action within 30 days of the 

date of service of this order. 

4. Failure to pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/21/24 Page 4 of 4