Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01019/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01019-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS BRENT FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMAN SAMADANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01019-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Marcus Brent Fields is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. section 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for 

the Central District of California on August 16, 2024. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for 

the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 2.) 

On August 19, 2024, the Central District issued a notice to Plaintiff advising him of a 

filing discrepancy as he had not paid the $405 filing fee. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff was advised that if he 

could not pay the entire filing fee, he must complete and return a request to proceed without 

prepayment of filing fees form within thirty days. (Id.) 

On August 26, 2024, United States District Judge John W. Holcomb issued an Order 

transferring the action from the Central District to this Court. (Doc. 5.) Judge Holcomb found 

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 08/29/24 Page 1 of 5
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

venue is proper in the Eastern District where the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred 

at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California. (Id.) For the reasons discussed below, the 

Courts finds that Plaintiff need not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis as he is 

precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action.

II. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915

28 U.S.C. section 1915 governs IFP proceedings. The statute 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

In determining whether a case counts as a “strike,” “the reviewing court looks to the 

dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it.... This means that the procedural 

mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is not 

dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court takes judicial notice1of prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff in the United States 

District Court for Southern District of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

1. Fields v. Newsom, No. 3:22-00044-LL-MDD (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a 

claim and as frivolous on May 16, 2022);

2. Fields v. Bouria, No. 3:22-cv-01656-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a 

claim and as frivolous on November 18, 2022);

2

1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 

1980).

2 At least three subsequent actions filed by Plaintiff in the Southern District have been dismissed after 

Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee as ordered by that Court: Fields v. Newsome, No. 3:23-cv-01416-

WQH-MSB; Fields v. Macomber, No. 3:23-cv-01575-DMS-JLB; and Fields v. Macomber, No. 3:23-cv02107-DAB-BLM. Additionally, an action filed by Plaintiff in the Central District of California has also 

been dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee as ordered: Fields v. Macomber, No. 2:24-cv-00207-

JWH-SHK.

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 08/29/24 Page 2 of 5
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

3. Fields v. Newsom, No. 22-55519 (9th Cir.) (appeal dismissed as frivolous on November 

17, 2022); and 

4. Fields v. Bouria, No. 22-56171 (9th Cir.) (appeal dismissed as frivolous on May 18, 2023)

 A dismissal for a failure to state a claim is a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2011). An appeal 

dismissed as frivolous also constitutes a strike. El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th 

Cir. 2016). Because Plaintiff has incurred at least three prior “strikes, and each was dismissed 

prior to the commencement of the current action on August 16, 2024, Plaintiff is subject to the 

section 1915(g) bar. Moreover, he is precluded from proceeding IFP in this action unless, at the 

time he filed his complaint, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2007).

 The Court has reviewed the complaint in this action and finds that Plaintiff’s allegations do 

not meet the imminent danger exception. Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated 

when his C-PAP device was confiscated on October 25, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Although Plaintiff 

complains the lack of his C-PAP device caused him “to suffer for months on end,” that his asthma 

“put [him] in distress,” and that he would wake in the middle of the night choking and concerned 

about his existing heart condition, these allegations are insufficient to demonstrate an imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. A review of documents attached as exhibits to Plaintiff’s 

complaint support this finding. (Id. at 15, 24 [referencing medical records].)

 Plaintiff lost the use of his C-PAP device on October 25, 2023, but waited more than nine 

months to file his complaint, suggesting any danger is not imminent. The “imminent danger” 

exception cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past harm. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The exception's use of the present tense, combined with its 

concern only with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception 

applies if the danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint”); Rogers v. Sterling, No. 

2:20-cv-1508-TMC, 2021 WL 195298, at *1 (D.S.C. Jan. 20, 2021) (adopting recommendations

to deny IFP where plaintiff “failed to make a showing of ‘imminent danger’ as he had been 

without a CPAP machine for a substantial period of time since being diagnosed with sleep apnea 

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 08/29/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

but had not suffered any serious medical problems as a result”); Blackman v. Mjening, No. 1:16-

cv-01421-LJO-GSA-PC, 2016 WL 5815905, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) (“Imminent danger of 

serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or hypothetical”); 

Dickson v. United States, No. 5:16cv215/MP/CJK, 2016 WL 6078330, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 

2016) (recommending IFP be denied because “allegations concerning denial of a ‘sleep study’

and CPAP machine, delay in receiving bottom dentures, lack of annual eye examinations and 

denial of a paying prison job, even viewed collectively, do not arguably show plaintiff is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury”), recommendations adopted October 14, 2016, 2016 

WL 6070074; Staley v. Smalley, No. 9:07-cv-1553-PMD, 2007 WL 2283647, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 

6, 2007) (finding that plaintiff failed to show his medical condition placed him in imminent 

danger of physical injury where he had been without medication for a sustained period of time); 

see also Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002) (the “imminent danger” exception is 

available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat ... is real and 

proximate”). 

In sum, this Court finds Plaintiff has suffered three or more strikes and was not under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint in this action. Therefore, 

Plaintiff should be precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. Andrews, 493 

F.3d at 1052-53.

IV. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district 

judge to this action and RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff be precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g); and

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within 30 days.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 

service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 08/29/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 08/29/24 Page 5 of 5