Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00470-0/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

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

Plaintiff Edwin Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This action proceeds on the complaint filed on April 5, 2016. On 

April 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) On April 

11, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (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 

EDWIN O. GARCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. MUNOZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00470-DAD-SAB-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT 

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS BE 

REVOKED, AND THAT THIS ACTION BE 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

REFILING WITH SUBMISSION OF $400.00 

FILING FEE

(ECF NO. 2)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Case 1:16-cv-00470-DAD-SAB Document 7 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

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.”1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and his allegations do not satisfy the imminent 

danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007). 

DESCRIBE CLAIMS. (ECF No. 1, pp. 2-5.). Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the custody of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP Corcoran, brings this action 

against Defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Wasco State Prison, where the 

events at issue occurred. Plaintiff alleges that on February 15, 2012, he was subjected to excessive 

force and sexual assault (Defendants grabbed Plaintiff’s genital area) by Defendants because he 

refused to turn down the volume on his television. Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely charged with 

assaulting staff. Plaintiff was told that because he complained that Defendants sexually assaulted him, 

they had to falsify charges of assault. Plaintiff makes no allegations concerning any imminent danger 

of serious physical injury. The conduct at issue occurred in 2012 at Wasco State Prison. Therefore, 

Plaintiff has not satisfied the exception from the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and must 

pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate this claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be revoked; and,

2. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00 

filing fee. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” 

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Edwin Garcia v. Mark 

Romero, et al., 2:15-cv-08810-DOC-DFM, (C. D. Cal. November 12, 2016 (dismissed on January 13, 2016 for 

frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and as malicious); Edwin Garcia v. Judge Henry Hall, 2:15-CV-08642-

DOC DFM (C.D. Cal. November 5, 2015) (dismissed on November 17, 2015 for frivolousness, failure to state a 

claim, and as malicious); and Edwin Garcia v. L. A. County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,,2:15-CV-08645-DOC-DFM 

(C. D.Cal. November 5, 2015)(dismissed on November 17, 2015, for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and 

as malicious).

Case 1:16-cv-00470-DAD-SAB Document 7 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 3
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

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 

of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.2d F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00470-DAD-SAB Document 7 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 3