Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01747/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01747-0/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

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

DAVID W. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

K.L. LASSITER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 14-cv-1747 KJN P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following 

reasons, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be 

denied.

This court’s record demonstrates that on at least three prior occasions before filing the 

complaint in this action, this court has dismissed at least three of plaintiff’s prior lawsuits on 

grounds that they were frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. See Wilson v. Schwartz, 2:05-cv-1649 GEB CMK P; Wilson v. Veal, 2:06-cv-0067 

FCD KJM P; Wilson v. Dovey, 2:06-cv-1032 FCD EFB P. These “strikes” were final before 

plaintiff filed the instant action. Plaintiff is therefore precluded from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in this action unless plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 2:14-cv-01747-WBS-KJN Document 4 Filed 07/31/14 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

The imminent danger exception applies only if it is clear that the danger existed when the 

complaint was filed, and the allegation must be plausible. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 

1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007). The court is required to assess the relevant circumstances and 

conditions at the time the complaint was filed, to determine “whether the complaint, as a whole, 

alleges imminent danger or serious physical injury.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Further, a prisoner’s complaint can demonstrate “imminent danger” by alleging an 

ongoing danger. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57. The alleged imminent danger must be real and 

proximate. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). Allegations that are overly 

speculative or fanciful may be rejected. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1057 n.11.

In the complaint, filed July 23, 2014, plaintiff alleges that defendant Lassiter harassed 

plaintiff after he filed two group appeals on September 4 and 18, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that in 

October 2012, defendant Lassiter had plaintiff’s ground floor chrono removed in retaliation for 

plaintiff filing a staff complaint against him. Plaintiff alleges that on October 23, 2012, plaintiff 

filed another staff complaint against defendant Lassiter. On December 6, 2012, this appeal was 

partially granted at the second level. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from pain in his thigh and 

groin area as a result of having to go up and down stairs now that he does not have his ground 

floor chrono. 

Plaintiff alleges that on October 23, 2012, he filed a staff complaint against defendant 

Wieland based on removal of his lower tier chrono, the denial of showers, and for failing to treat 

rashes and a lump under plaintiff’s arm. On February 13, 2013, defendant Clark denied 

plaintiff’s second level grievance of this staff complaint against defendant Wieland. On July 24, 

2013, defendant Zamora denied plaintiff’s third level grievance. 

As relief, plaintiff seeks a permanent ground floor chrono and an order directing that he be 

seen by an outside doctor. Plaintiff also seeks money damages. 

Defendants committed the alleged deprivations in 2012 and 2013. The only ongoing 

injury plaintiff alleges is the continued denial of the ground floor chrono. Plaintiff alleges that he 

suffers from pain in his thigh and groin area as a result of having to go up and down stairs. 

Plaintiff has been without a ground floor chrono for almost two years. Based on this 

Case 2:14-cv-01747-WBS-KJN Document 4 Filed 07/31/14 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

circumstance, and the allegations in the complaint, the undersigned does not find that plaintiff’s 

allegations of pain demonstrate a serious physical injury or the imminent danger of serious 

physical injury warranting a finding that plaintiff meets the imminent danger exception set forth 

in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis should 

be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district 

judge to this action; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis be denied; plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 31, 2014

Wil1747.ord

Case 2:14-cv-01747-WBS-KJN Document 4 Filed 07/31/14 Page 3 of 3