Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01059/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01059-6/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

JOSH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OGBEHI, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01059 LJO DLB PC

ORDER VACATING ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(Document 4)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS (Document 2)

Plaintiff Josh Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 10, 2015. 

On July 14, 2015, the Court determined that Plaintiff was subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and 

dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling accompanied by the filing fee. Plaintiff appealed 

the dismissal. 

The action was remanded by the Ninth Circuit on February 22, 2016.1 On March 29, 2016, 

the Court reopened this action and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) 

days. The Court indicated that it would make a determination under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) once 

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2016.

 

1

In remanding, the Ninth Circuit determined that this Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to amend without 

making a finding that amendment would be futile.

Case 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 07/22/16 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

DISCUSSION

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.”2 

If a plaintiff has three strikes under § 1915(g), he may still proceed in forma pauperis if he can 

show that he was in imminent danger at the time of filing his complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The “imminent danger” exception “applies if the complaint makes a 

plausible allegation that the prisoner faced imminent physical danger at the time of filing” the 

complaint. Id. at 1055. Thus, to meet the imminent danger exception, the threat or prison condition 

must be real and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003), and the danger of 

serious physical injury must exist at the time the complaint is filed. Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 

559, 562-563 (2d Cir. 2002); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053.

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff provides more detailed allegations than those in 

his original complaint. He contends that from 2011 to the present, Defendants have not provided 

him reasonable accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act, denied appropriate 

medical treatment, falsified and ignored various medical records, and failed to provide him an 

operable wheelchair, causing injury and pain to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to meet the “imminent danger of serious physical 

injury” exception under § 1915(g), and Plaintiff shall be granted in forma pauperis status. See, 

e.g., Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-1057. (“[A] prisoner who alleges that prison officials continue 

with a practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past will satisfy the 

‘ongoing danger’ standard and meet the imminence prong of the three-strikes exception.”). 

 

2

 The court takes judicial notice of the following cases: 1:98-cv-06095-AW-HGB (PC), Thomas v. Wilson

(dismissed on June 21, 1999, for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted); 1:99-cv-05350-AWI-LJO 

(PC), Thomas v. Fairman (dismissed on December 22, 2000, for failure to state a claim for which relief may be 

granted); 1:04-cv-05793-MJS (PC), Thomas v. Carrasco (dismissed on October 13, 2010, for failure to state a claim 

for which relief may be granted).

Case 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 07/22/16 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

However, Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty 

percent of the proceeding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. CDCR is required 

to send to the Clerk of the Court payments from Plaintiff’s account each time the amount in the 

account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

In accordance with the above and good cause appearing therefore, it is HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. The order denying Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is VACATED;

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED;

3. The Director of CDCR or his designee shall collect payments from Plaintiff’s 

prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding 

month’s income credited to the prisoner’s trust account and shall forward those 

payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds 

$10.00, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), until a total of $350.00 has 

been collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments shall be 

clearly identified by the name and case number assigned to this action. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application on the Director of CDCR, via the Court’s 

electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial 

Department, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. 

6. Within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit a 

certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period 

immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, if Plaintiff has not already done 

so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-BAM Document 24 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 3