Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00347/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00347-15/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 

KEENAN WILKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PAUL GONZALES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2: 16-cv-347 KJM KJN P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On October 23, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis status be denied. Defendants argued that plaintiff has five strikes under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). The magistrate judge found that only one of the five strikes cited by defendants 

qualified as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Case 2:16-cv-00347-KJM-KJN Document 61 Filed 02/01/18 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

 Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff’s two appeals do not 

qualify as strikes. Resolution of defendants’ objection is controlled by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 

1202 (9th Cir. 2015). In Richey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied 

the rule announced in O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) to appeals, as follows: 

In O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008), we held that 

“when a district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint 

‘on the grounds that [the claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be grant,’ such a complaint is 

‘dismissed’ for purposes of 1915(g) even if the district court styles 

such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the 

action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” Id. at 1153 

(alteration in original). O’Neal’s reasoning applies equally to the 

situation in Thaut III, as we rejected Richey’s request for IFP status 

because the appeal was frivolous even though we did not dismiss 

the appeal until later when Richey did not pay the filing fee. 

Richey, 807 F.3d at 1208. The panel’s reasoning did not rest on the fact that the action underlying 

the appeal in Richey’s prior case denominated Thaut III had been dismissed as frivolous. The 

holding was based on the fact that a motions panel had determined the appeal to be frivolous, 

denied Richey IFP status on appeal but allowed him an opportunity to pay the filing fee and 

proceed with the appeal, and then dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. Id. 

 Here, the two appeals at issue were found to be frivolous by both the district court and the 

court of appeals. See ECF No. 59 at 4, 6. Following those determinations, in each instance the 

court of appeals ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fees. Id. at 5, 6. The appeals were dismissed 

after plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fees. Id. at 5, 6. Richey requires that the two 

appeals be considered strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 Given the foregoing, plaintiff has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and therefore 

can only proceed in forma pauperis with this action if he is “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). The allegations of the cognizable claims in this action do 

not support the required finding. 

Having reviewed the file, the court declines to adopt the findings that plaintiff’s appeals, 

12-cv-16170 and 13-cv-17060, are not strikes under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) or the recommendation 

that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in form pauperis status be denied. For the reasons 

set forth in the findings and recommendations and this order, the court finds that before filing this 

Case 2:16-cv-00347-KJM-KJN Document 61 Filed 02/01/18 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

action plaintiff has filed one civil action and two appeals that were dismissed on the grounds that 

they were frivolous, and that the cognizable claims in this action do not support a finding that 

plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 23, 2017 are adopted to the extent 

consistent with this order; 

 2. Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 50, is 

granted; and 

 3. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is revoked and plaintiff is granted thirty days from 

the date of this order in which to pay the filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00) for this 

action. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 

DATED: January 31, 2018. 

Case 2:16-cv-00347-KJM-KJN Document 61 Filed 02/01/18 Page 3 of 3