Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01373/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01373-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alex Leonard Azevedo
Plaintiff
Department of State Hospital Coalinga
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LEONARD AZEVEDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITAL 

COALINGA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01373-KES-EPG (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(ECF No. 8)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S IFP 

APPLICATION BE DENIED AND THAT

PLAINTIFF BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE 

FILING FEE IN FULL IF HE WANTS TO 

PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION

(ECF No. 2)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff Alex Leonard Azevedo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 2).

Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this

action and because he was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 

it, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $405 filing fee in full if he wants 

to proceed with the action. 1

1 The Court issued an order to show cause on November 15, 2024, noting that it appeared that Plaintiff’s 

claims were duplicative of an earlier-filed lawsuit, Azevedo v. Department of State Hospital Coalinga, 

Case 1:24-cv-01373-KES-EPG Document 13 Filed 11/26/24 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

I. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Pertinent here is the so called “three strikes provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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). In determining whether a dismissal counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g),

“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) (internal 

citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has “interpreted the final form of dismissal under the statute, 

‘fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ to be essentially synonymous with a 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal.” Id. (alteration in original).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Strikes

Plaintiff filed this action on November 4, 2024, with the complaint being dated October 

30, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The Court takes judicial notice2of the following four cases, each of which 

counts as a “strike”: (1) Azevedo v. Thompson, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01262-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. 

April 10, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a claim at screening); (2) Azevedo v. Colusa County 

Jail, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00472-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a 

claim at screening); (3) Azevedo v. Smith, et al., No. 2:16-cv-01214-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 

2016) (dismissed for failure to state a claim at screening); (4) Azevedo v. Smith, et al., No. 2:16-

cv-2809-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) (dismissed for failure to state a claim). Moreover, 

Plaintiff has previously been denied IFP status by at least one other court because of his threestriker status. See Azevedo v. Smith, et al., No. 2:18-cv-02818-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.). 

\\\

1:24-cv-01345-KES-HBK. (ECF No. 8). However, because that other case has since been voluntarily 

dismissed and closed, the Court discharges the show cause order.

2

“In particular, a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases . . . .” United States v. 

Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:24-cv-01373-KES-EPG Document 13 Filed 11/26/24 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

B. Imminent Danger

Because Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this action, Plaintiff is 

precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was 

filed, in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The availability of the imminent danger 

exception “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at 

some earlier or later time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative 

or hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, No. 1:16-CV-01421-LJO-GSA (PC), 2016 WL 5815905, 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide 

“specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct 

evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 

1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are 

insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). The “imminent danger” 

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

real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Additionally, there is a nexus requirement between the danger alleged and the claims 

asserted: “Thus, in order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes 

prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to 

unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 

692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger 

determination, the Court must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 

1055.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that a mental health patient attacked him while he was 

located at Coalinga State Hospital. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). However, by the time that Plaintiff filed this 

complaint, he was located in San Quentin State Prison, indicating that the events complained of 

happened before this transfer. And Plaintiff acknowledges that he was treated for his injuries at an 

outside hospital. 

Such allegations are insufficient to show that there is a real and imminent threat to 

Plaintiff’s personal safety under the standards described above. None of these allegations fairly 

Case 1:24-cv-01373-KES-EPG Document 13 Filed 11/26/24 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

implicate an ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood 

of imminent serious physical injury to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff is a “three-striker” and does not appear to have been in 

imminent danger when he filed this action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to 

pay the $405 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with the action.

III. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the show cause order is discharged. (ECF No. 8).

And IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

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

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff be directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee in 

full if he wants to proceed with this action.

3. Plaintiff be advised that failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in the dismissal 

of this case.

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)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 pages, 

including exhibits. Plaintiff is 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, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01373-KES-EPG Document 13 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 4