Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00131-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY RECARDO GONZALESTURNER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00131-LJO-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS AND TO REQUIRE 

PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE

(Docs. 3, 5, 11)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Anthony Recardo Gonzales-Turner, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint in this action on January 26, 2015. On that same date, Plaintiff filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted the next day. (Docs. 3, 5.) 

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

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. "In 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). 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00131-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 04/29/15 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

B. DISCUSSION

The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 

873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, judicial notice is taken of Turner v. Cates, et al., Case 

Number 2:11-cv-01744-CKD P. In that action, an order issued on August 22, 2011, denying 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis as Plaintiff had at least three strikes1under 

section 1915(g) prior to its filing and finding that Plaintiff had not shown that he was in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed suit which precluded him from proceeding in 

forma pauperis. Thus, Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is precluded from 

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless at the time the Complaint was filed, he was 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and finds that he does not meet the 

imminent danger exception. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). In

this action, Plaintiff complains of events that occurred at three separate detention facilities: Deuel 

Vocational Institution (ADVI@) in Tracy, California (¶¶ 12-22); Pelican Bay State Prison (APBSP@) 

in Crescent City, California (¶¶ 21-42); and Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") in Corcoran, 

California (¶¶43-80). However, when Plaintiff filed this action, he was housed at Salinas Valley 

State Prison (ASVSP@) in Soledad, California. (See Doc. 1, p. 1.) The Complaint contains 

allegations regarding past retaliatory wrongs that occurred at DVI, PBSP, and CSP. Plaintiff does 

not state any allegations of wrongdoing at PVSP. Thus, Plaintiff's allegations do not show that he 

was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at PVSP at the time he filed suit, which 

precludes him from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 

1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007).

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the District Court's consideration 

and review of his Complaint. (Doc. 11.) In that motion, Plaintiff alleges that the Clerk of the 

 

1

The cases relied on in that action were Case Nos. CIV-S-08-2087 EFB P which was dismissed for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted; the second was the appeal of that same case, Ninth Circuit Case No. 11-

15044 which summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim and on which mandate 

issued on May 16,2 011; and the third was CIV-S-09-3326 FCD DAD P which was dismissed as duplicative of 

another action Plaintiff had filed. The Court also notes that the Court dismissed another of Plaintiff’s cases, Turner v. 

Gipson, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-01395-GBC, on April 13, 2012 due to his failure to state a claim. 

Case 1:15-cv-00131-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 04/29/15 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

Court has obstructed his "access to freely communicate with the court by motion practice to 

prosecute this action;" that too much money are being "extorted" from his prison account under 

the order granting his in forma pauperis status; that he intends to seek default judgment based on 

"the prejudices complained of . . . commercial crimes under admirality [sic] maritime laws and 

the prejudice impedes [his] court access to due process/equal protection clause of the 4th, 8th, 

9th, 10, 13th, and 14th Amends. to the U.S. Const.;" and that he "invokes his rights under the War 

Powers Act § 1933" requesting a hearing and review of his Complaint. (Id.) Revocation of 

Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status will resolve Plaintiff's protestation that a lien has been placed 

against his prison account for too high of a percentage of the filing fee and Plaintiff's request for a 

hearing and review of his Complaint should be denied as his case will be screened for cognizable 

claims after Plaintiff pays the filing fee in full. 

C. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff had more than three strikes under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) before he filed this action. 

His allegations do not establish that he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

the time the Complaint was filed -- when he was housed at PVSP. Thus, the Court recommends 

that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status be revoked, that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee 

for this action in full, and that Plaintiff's motion for consideration and review of his Complaint be 

denied.2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis be revoked and the order that granted it be stricken 

from the record;

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full; and

3. Plaintiff's motion for consideration and review of his Complaint, filed April 20, 

2015 (Doc. 11), be denied.

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

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30 

 

2

Once Plaintiff pays the filing fee in full, the action will be placed in line to be screened for cognizable claims.

Case 1:15-cv-00131-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 04/29/15 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

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's 

Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may result 

in the waiver of 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: April 29, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00131-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 4