Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01362-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 Seavon Pierce (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on 

September 14, 2016. That same day, he also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

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 

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

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Seavon Pierce v. Lancaster 

State Prison, 2:13-CV-08126 (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and as 

malicious); Seavon Pierce v. Fernando Gonzales, et al., 1:10-cv-00285-JLT (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

December 3, 2012 for failure to state a claim); and Seavon Pierce v. President Barack Obama, et al., 1:15-cv00650-DAD-DLB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed December 1, 2015, for failure to state a claim); Seavon Pierce v. The 

SEAVON PIERCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE U.S. GOVERNENT AND ITS 

OFFICERS AS FEDERAL JUDGES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01362-LJO-EPG

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH SUBMISSION 

OF $400.00 FILING FEE

Case 1:16-cv-01362-LJO-EPG Document 3 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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). 

Plaintiff makes no allegations concerning any imminent danger of serious physical injury. 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, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED; and,

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

filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

 

US Government and Its Officers as Federal Judges, 1:16-cv-1361-LJO-BAM (dismissed on September 19, 

2016, as barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1916(g)’s three strikes provision).

Case 1:16-cv-01362-LJO-EPG Document 3 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 2