Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01594/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01594-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Aboytes
Defendant
Deshawn Malone
Plaintiff

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

DESHAWN MALONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ABOYTES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01594-AWI-SKO (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Docs. 2, 8)

Plaintiff Deshawn Malone is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), because he 

has more than three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and fails to show that he is in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff filed objections on December 2, 2019. (Doc. 

9.) In his objections, Plaintiff does not dispute the strikes found by the magistrate judge; rather, he 

argues that the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g) should apply. (See id. at 2-3.)

Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet the imminent danger exception. In his complaint, 

Plaintiff states that he was involved in a physical altercation with another inmate in June of 2019, 

which resulted in their being pepper sprayed. (Doc. 1 at 9-10.) Plaintiff alleges that the defendant 

Case 1:19-cv-01594-AWI-SKO Document 10 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 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

2

violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he “denied [Plaintiff] decontamination.” (Id. at 4.)

In his objections, Plaintiff states that he was pepper sprayed and denied decontamination on three 

prior occasions, the last one being in December of 2012. (Doc. 9 at 2-3.) Such allegations of past 

events spanning several years do not show that Plaintiff is in imminent, future danger of serious 

physical injury.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 18, 2019, (Doc. 8), are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), is DENIED; and,

3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the 

filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01594-AWI-SKO Document 10 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2