Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01488/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01488-0/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARL ECKSTROM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BICK, et al., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:23-cv-1488 TLN AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil action and seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the reasons stated below, the 

undersigned recommends the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 2) be denied. 

I. Three Strikes Analysis 

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States to 

authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person 

who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a 

judgement in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more 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, 

Case 2:23-cv-01488-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 08/30/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded 

from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three 

frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook, 

169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in 

forma pauperis] status only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and 

other relevant information, the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it 

was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2005). 

 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff has led to the identification of at least 3 cases 

that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the following lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1

1. Eckstrom v. Reagan, No. 2:98-cv-1034 LKK JFM (E.D. Cal.) (complaint dismissed 

October 20, 1998, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 7));2 

2. Eckstrom v. Beard, No. 2:15-cv-8560 TJH AS (C.D. Cal.) (third amended complaint 

dismissed on April 24, 2017, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 36)); 

3. Eckstrom v. Hoshino, No. 2:16-cv-0538 TLN EFB (E.D. Cal.) (second amended 

complaint dismissed on January 23, 2020, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 35)). 

All of the preceding cases were dismissed well in advance of the July 18, 2023 filing of 

the instant action, and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, this court finds that 

plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of 

1

 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 

judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex 

rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court 

may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 

2

 Because the case is over twenty years old, an electronic copy of the order dismissing the case 

could not be located. Nonetheless, the court was able to identify the basis for dismissal of the 

complaint from the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision in Case No. 98-17303. ECF No. 16. 

The Ninth Circuit summarized and affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint 

for failure to state a claim. Id. 

Case 2:23-cv-01488-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 08/30/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have 

alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at 

the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of 

the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”). “[T]he imminent danger exception to the PLRA 

three-strikes provision requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and the violations 

of law alleged in the complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 695 (9th Cir. 2022). 

The complaint alleges that from December 3, 2022, to May 19, 2023, defendants failed to 

provide plaintiff with treatment for an enlarged prostate, causing plaintiff to urinate on himself 

while he slept. ECF No. 1 at 5-7. In alleging the injury suffered, the plaintiff acknowledges he 

“started to get adequate medication for [e]nlarged [p]rostate on May 19, 2023,” and that he does 

not have cancer. Id. at 5. Accordingly, the allegations do not demonstrate an imminent risk of 

serious physical injury at the time of filing, and the undersigned will therefore recommend that 

plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint dismissed. 

II. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis 

status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury at the time you filed your complaint and so it is being recommended that 

your motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and you be required to pay the whole filing 

fee at one time. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $405.00 in required fees within thirty days or face 

dismissal of the case. 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-01488-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 08/30/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

with the court. 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: August 29, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-01488-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 08/30/24 Page 4 of 4