Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02605/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02605-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory C. Bontemps
Plaintiff
Narinder Saukhla
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NARINDER SAUKHLA,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-2605 CKD P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

I. Three Strikes Analysis

Plaintiff has not yet submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this case nor 

has he paid the required filing fee of $350.00 plus the $50.00 administrative fee. However, as 

explained below, plaintiff will not be given the opportunity to submit an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis because he has accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and he has not 

shown that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Instead, the court will 

recommend that plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 in required fees or suffer dismissal of the 

complaint.

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 

Case 2:19-cv-02605-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 01/09/20 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

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, 

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). “[W]hen a district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds 

that [the claim] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ 

such a complaint is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such 

dismissal as denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full 

filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original). 

Dismissal also counts as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint 

on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff 

then fails to file an amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or 

without prejudice. Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2017). 

Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff in this court has led to the identification of at 

least three cases brought by plaintiff that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the 

following lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1

 

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) 

(continued)

Case 2:19-cv-02605-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 01/09/20 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

1. Bontemps v. McKramel, E.D. Cal. No. 2:06-cv-2483 JAM GGH (complaint dismissed 

with leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on December 22, 2008, for 

failure to file an amended complaint)

2. Bontemps v. McKramer, E.D. Cal. No. 2:06-cv-2580 GEB GGH (complaint dismissed 

with leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on August 30, 2007, for 

failure to file an amended complaint)

3. Bontemps v. Gray, E.D. Cal. No. 2:07-cv-0710 MCE CMK (complaint dismissed with 

leave to amend for failure to state a claim, case dismissed on July 5, 2007, for failure to 

file an amended complaint)

4. Bontemps v. Lee, E.D. Cal. No. 2:12-cv-0771 KJN (complaint dismissed without leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim on January 31, 2013)

5. Bontemps v. Aquino, E.D. Cal. No. 2:12-cv-2406 EFB (complaint dismissed without 

leave to amend for failure to state a claim on July 9, 2013)

All of the preceding cases were dismissed well in advance of the December 24, 2019

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 she is “under imminent 

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

have alleged facts that demonstrate that she 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).”); see also, Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 

239 F.3d 307, 312-14 (3rd Cir. 2001); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 

1999); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 

885 (5th Cir. 1998).

The complaint alleges that plaintiff submitted a staff complaint against defendant Saukhla 

 

(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).

Case 2:19-cv-02605-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 01/09/20 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

on June 24, 2019, after Saukhla cancelled his referral to podiatry for a replacement CAM boot. 

(ECF No. 1 at 3.) He claims that he has a right foot fracture that requires an air cast walking boot 

to allow him to ambulate properly. Id. Plaintiff has also attached an appeal that indicates that he 

was seen by a podiatrist on December 28, 2018, and issued equipment as recommended by the 

podiatrist and that he has a chrono for a wheelchair. Id. at 8, 10. Based on these allegations, the 

court cannot find that plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time 

he filed his complaint. It will therefore be recommended 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 and so it is being recommended that you be ordered to pay the entire 

$400.00 in required fees.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 

assign a United States District Judge to this action.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $400.00 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 

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: January 9, 2020

13:bont2605.1915g.f&r

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02605-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 4