Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01739/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01739-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Michael Long
Plaintiff
World
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

KEVIN MICHAEL LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORLD,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-01739 KJM DB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims his brain is being threatened and he has been denied his right to 

assemble due through restriction of his access to the internet. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Presently before 

the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons set 

forth below, the undersigned will recommend that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be 

denied.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

I. In Forma Pauperis Statute

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) permits a federal court to authorize 

the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who 

submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. 

////

Case 2:23-cv-01739-KJM-SCR Document 8 Filed 04/16/24 Page 1 of 5
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

However,

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . [in forma 

pauperis] 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).

This “three strikes rule” was part of “a variety of reforms designed to filter out the bad 

claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate consideration of the good.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 

U.S. 532, 535 (2015) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007) (brackets in original)). If 

a prisoner has “three strikes” under § 1915(g), the prisoner is barred from proceeding in forma 

pauperis unless he meets the exception for imminent danger or serious physical injury. See

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). To meet this exception, the 

complaint of a “three-strikes” prisoner must plausibly allege that the prisoner was faced with 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time his complaint was filed. See Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2015); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055.

II. Has Plaintiff Accrued Three Strikes

A review of actions filed by plaintiff reveals that plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he was at the time the 

complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff has previously

been found to have accrued three strikes. See Michael Long v. United States, No. 1:23-cv-01117

ADA BAM, 2023 WL 5103440 (E.D. Cal. July, 2023), findings and recommendations adopted 

by 2023 WL 5311610 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023.)

The court takes judicial notice of those cases and plaintiff’s prior filings described therein. 

MCIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986) (A court may take judicial 

notice of its own records and the records of other courts). 

////

////

////

Case 2:23-cv-01739-KJM-SCR Document 8 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Those cases include: (1) Long v. USA, Case No. 1:13-cv-01368-SAB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

Sept. 11, 2013 as frivolous); (2) Long v. USA, Case No. 1:13-cv-01228-JLT (E.D. Cal.) 

(dismissed on Jan. 16, 2014 as frivolous); (3) Long v. Stanislaus Cty. Super. Ct., Case No. 1:13-

cv-01370-SAB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 1, 2014 for failure to state a claim); (4) Long v. 

USA California, Case No. 1:13-cv-01256-GSA (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on June 23, 2014 for 

failure to state a claim). These strikes all occurred prior to plaintiff’s initiation of the present 

action on August 14, 2023. (ECF No. at 1.)

III. Does Plaintiff Meet the Imminent Danger Exception 

Plaintiff has accrued three strikes. Therefore, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in 

forma pauperis in this action unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). The availability of the imminent danger exception turns on the conditions a 

prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some other later time. See Andrews, 493 

F.3d at 1053. “[A]ssertions of imminent danger of less obviously injurious practices may be 

rejected as overly speculative or fanciful.” Id. at 1057 n.11. Imminent danger of serious physical 

injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or hypothetical. To meet his burden

under § 1915(g), an inmate 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). “Vague and utterly conclusory 

assertions” of harm are insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 

1998). That is, 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).

Plaintiff names the world as the defendant in this action. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff first 

alleges the world violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America. 

(ECF No. 1 at 4.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the defendant, the world, is obstructing his 

powers to achieve world domination. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that he is injured 

monetarily by the prevention of his world dominion and he is “being threatened and in danger of 

death in World War III.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff’s second claim asserts that there is a threat 

Case 2:23-cv-01739-KJM-SCR Document 8 Filed 04/16/24 Page 3 of 5
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

to his safety through the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 

States of America. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that the world is harming him by being full 

of evils. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Finally, plaintiff alleges that the world has violated the First 

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by preventing him from 

exercising his right to assembly. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) He asserts without access to the internet he is 

unable to gather his fellow citizens which has resulted in harm. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)

The undersigned has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that his allegations do not 

satisfy the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 

1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007). In the complaint, Plaintiff attempts to raise claims against the world. 

(ECF No. 1.) He appears to raise claims asserting injury both physical and economical for lack of 

access to the internet and being confined. (ECF No. 1.) “Imminent danger of serious physical 

injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or hypothetical.” Blackman v.

Mjening, 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 or insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998).

The allegations in the complaint disjointed and difficult to decipher at best and appear to 

raise only frivolous allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff does not meet 

the imminent danger exception described in § 1915(g) and should only be allowed to proceed 

with this action if he pays the filing fee.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

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

2. The court find plaintiff accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prior to filing 

this action; and 

3. The court order plaintiff to pay the $402 filing fee in order to proceed with this action.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

Case 2:23-cv-01739-KJM-SCR Document 8 Filed 04/16/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in a waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 16, 2024

DB:16

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/long01739.3strikes

Case 2:23-cv-01739-KJM-SCR Document 8 Filed 04/16/24 Page 5 of 5