Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01282/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01282-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seavon Pierce
Plaintiff
U.S. Congress
Defendant

Document Text:

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

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. CONGRESS,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DENY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff‟s August 30, 2016 motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)

28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits a federal court to authorize the commencement and 

prosecution of an action without prepayment of fees by an individual who submits an

affidavit demonstrating that he is unable to pay the fees. However, 

[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 

Case 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 09/13/16 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

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). 

The imminent danger exception applies if “the complaint makes a plausible 

allegation that the prisoner faced „imminent danger of serious physical injury‟ at the time 

of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit 

interprets “imminent danger” to mean “ongoing danger,” meaning the prisoner must 

allege that prison officials have continued with a practice that has injured him or others 

similarly situated in the past. Id. at 1056-57. 

Here, Plaintiff has incurred at least three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g).1 Accordingly, he may only proceed in forma pauperis if he was in “imminent 

danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff‟s pleading does not meet the imminent danger requirement. Plaintiff‟s 

allegations are difficult to understand but appear to relate to what he believes is an 

improper sealing of records in Riverside County Court, falsification of records in “Los 

Angeles federal court,” attempts by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining counsel in a separate action, 

concealment of evidence, related misconduct by judges, and the like. Plaintiff also 

alleges that his family has been improperly contacted by CDCR to maintain 

communications with informants in prison. These facts do not suggest any danger of 

physical injury.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff‟s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis be DENIED, and that Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full 

 

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the following cases: Pierce v. Gonzales, No. 1:10-cv-00285-JLT (E.D. 

Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Pierce v. Obama, No. 1:15-cv-00650-LJO-DLB 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2015) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Pierce v. McEwen, No. 2:12-cv-8240 UA 

(CW) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2012) (dismissed for failure to state a claim). The Court also takes judicial notice 

of Pierce v. Unknown, No. 15-17511 (9th Cir. April 6, 2016) (concluding Plaintiff has had three or more 

prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted).

Case 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 09/13/16 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

before proceeding in this action.

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)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, any party 

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.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 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: September 12, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 3