Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01170/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr.
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01170-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, (2) DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), AND (3) DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 1 and 2)

Plaintiff Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., #07418-046, (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner 

proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), on July 28, 2015. Plaintiff seeks leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis in this case pursuant to the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). (ECF No. 2.) 

As Plaintiff concedes, he is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[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 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury.”

1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and his 

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Fourstar v. Garden City Group, 

Case No. 1:15-mc-0076, 2015 WL 301217, *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2015) (finding plaintiff had three strikes for 

purposes of 1915(g)) and Fourstar v. Costell, Case No. 14-cv-00957-NJR, 2014 WL 4826753, *1 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 

2014) (same). In Costell, the district court took judicial notice of the following: Fourstar v. Ness, Case No. CV-05-

Case 1:15-cv-01170-AWI-BAM Document 4 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

allegations do not satisfy the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. 

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Plaintiff is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Marianna, Florida. 

Plaintiff’s complaint concerns events that occurred while he was housed at the United States 

Penitentiary in Atwater, California.2 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on March 20, 2015, 

Dr. Andrew Pecaros failed to perform required orthopedic knee surgeries, failed to provide a CTScan for a November 2013 head injury, and failed to provide required dental care for Plaintiff’s 

front upper tooth and lower back tooth. Plaintiff further alleges that on June 24, 2014, Physician 

Assistant Anne Egan failed to provide Plaintiff with required orthopedic knee surgeries, failed to 

provide a CT-Scan for a November 2013 head injury, and failed to provide dental care for 

Plaintiff’s front upper tooth and lower back tooth. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that on June 24, 

2014, an unknown psychologist failed to provide Plaintiff with required mental health services 

during Plaintiff’s one year of detention in an isolation unit. (ECF No. 1.) In his application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff contends that he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury at FCI Marianna because he has received no medical care of his knees from mid2011 through the present or for his front upper tooth and lower back wisdom tooth, which is 

reportedly abscessed. (ECF No. 1, p. 7.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. Indeed, Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest that he is in any imminent danger 

from the prison employees identified in his complaint as he is no longer housed at the United 

States Penitentiary, Atwater. Further, Plaintiff’s knees and teeth reportedly have been an issue 

since at least June 2014, which belies any assertion of imminent danger more than a year later. 

Therefore, Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate this action against 

personnel at the United States Penitentiary, Atwater. 

 

108-SHE (D. Mont.) (dismissed April 26, 2006); Fourstar v. Murlak, Case No. CV-07-5892-ODW-SS, 2010 WL 

2163993, *1) (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010) (action dismissed for frivolousness and failure to state a claim); and Fourstar 

v. Zemyan, Case No. 2:06-cv-03774-UA-RZ (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed Aug. 26, 2008).

2 To the extent Plaintiff is pursuing this action against the United States of America as the sole defendant, he may 

not do so. A Bivens claim is not available against the United States. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); 

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 1:15-cv-01170-AWI-BAM Document 4 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action is DENIED;

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00 

filing fee; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01170-AWI-BAM Document 4 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3