Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01993/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01993-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. Barton
Defendant
Carlos T. Bea
Defendant
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Susan P. Graber
Defendant
Kamala D. Harris
Defendant
Barack Obama
Defendant
Office of Internal Affairs
Defendant
Seavon Pierce
Plaintiff
Jennifer L. Thurston
Defendant
United States Government
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 

SEAVON PIERCE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARACK OBAMA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1993 WBS AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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 

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 

judgment in a civil action or proceeding 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

 On June 13, 2016, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Amended Complaint.” ECF No. 7 at 1. 

The amended complaint is largely incoherent. 

Case 2:15-cv-01993-WBS-AC Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court takes judicial notice2 of the following lawsuits previously filed 

by plaintiff: 

(1) Pierce v. Gonzales, 1:10-cv-0285 JLT (E.D. Cal.), December 3, 2012 order dismissing 

action for failing to state a claim and January 30, 2013 order revoking in forma 

pauperis status on appeal. Id., ECF Nos. 27 & 38. 

(2) Pierce v. California State, CV 12-9211 UA (CW) (C.D. Cal.), November 20, 2012 

order denying leave to file action without prepayment of full filing fee on grounds that 

action was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Id., ECF No. 5. 

(3) Pierce v. McEwan, 2:12-cv-08240-UA-CW (C.D. Cal.), October 11, 2012 and 

November 9, 2012 orders denying leave to file action without prepayment of full filing 

fee on grounds that action was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Id., ECF 

Nos. 2, 8. 

(4) Pierce v. Warden of Lancaster, CV 13-1939 UA (CW) (C.D. Cal.) (March 28, 2013 

order denying leave to file action without prepayment of full filing fee on grounds that 

action was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim). Id., ECF No. 2. 

(5) Pierce v. Lancaster State Prison, 2:13-cv-8126 (C.D. Cal.), December 3, 2013, order 

denying leave to file action without prepayment of full filing fee on grounds that 

action failed to state a cognizable claim.3 Id., ECF No. 6. 

//// 

 

2

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 

1126 (1981). 

3

 In addition to finding that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim, the court also found that 

the action was barred under the “Three Strikes” provision. Pierce v. Lancaster State Prison, 2:13-

cv-8126 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 6. Because the denial of leave to file the action without 

prepayment of the full filing fee was not based solely on a three strikes finding, the court may 

count the dismissal as an additional strike. Cf. El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (“Where a dismissal is based solely on a finding that the plaintiff has previously 

incurred at least three strikes, without any additional finding that the instant action is itself 

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, the dismissal does not count as an additional 

strike.”). Even if Pierce v. Lancaster State Prison is not included in the strike count, plaintiff has 

incurred more than three qualifying dismissals. 

Case 2:15-cv-01993-WBS-AC Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 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

The court’s review of the above records reveals that on at least three occasions, lawsuits 

filed by plaintiff have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or malicious or 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, this court finds that plaintiff 

is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless plaintiff is “under imminent 

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

have alleged facts that demonstrate that he 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).”). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. In his complaint, plaintiff names as defendants President Barack Obama, 

the United States Government, the California Department of Corrections, the Honorable Jennifer 

L. Thurston, the Honorable Carlos T. Bea, the Honorable Susan P. Graber, Attorney General 

Kamala D. Harris, Inspector General Robert A. Barton, and the Office of Internal Affairs. See 

ECF No. 1 at 2. Although it is not entirely clear, plaintiff appears to challenge the dismissal 

without prejudice of plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed in Pierce v. Gonzales, Case No. 

1:10-cv-0285 JLT, ECF No. 24, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21888 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011).4 See 

ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff appears to allege that defendants engaged in fraud, conspiracy, and 

obstruction of justice; that his complaint in Pierce v. Gonzales stated a claim for relief and was 

not frivolous; and that defendants were aware of defendants’ guilt but nevertheless allowed 

plaintiff’s claims to be dismissed by the district court and thereafter denied on appeal. See ECF 

No. 1 at 1, 3-11. 

Because the court finds that plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of “imminent 

danger” to qualify for an exception to the “three strikes” bar under § 1915(g), the undersigned 

 

4

 In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged claims related to law library access, mail 

service, laundry services, religious services, inmate appeals, administrative segregation, and 

medical treatment. See Pierce v. Gonzales, Case No. 1:10-cv-0285 JLT, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

21888, *2-33 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011). The court determined that plaintiff’s allegations failed to 

state a claim for relief, and plaintiff’s second amended complaint was dismissed without 

prejudice to the filing of a third amended complaint. See id. at *33-34. 

Case 2:15-cv-01993-WBS-AC Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 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

will recommend that plaintiff be denied in forma pauperis status and be required to pay the full 

filing fee in order to proceed with this action. 

Plaintiff has also filed a document (ECF No. 11) in which he asserts judicial misconduct 

and illegal solicitation of funds by the court based on the court’s orders (ECF Nos. 6 & 8) 

requiring him to pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis affidavit. Plaintiff seems to 

assert that he is not filing a civil rights complaint and should therefore be allowed to proceed 

without paying the filing fee.5 See ECF No. 7 at 1; ECF No. 11 at 2. Plaintiff is mistaken. All 

parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, other 

than a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350.00 plus the $50.00 administrative fee.6 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). This rule applies to all incarcerated person regardless of the 

nature of their claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 9 & 10) be denied; 

2. Plaintiff be required to pay the filing of $400.00 in full within twenty-one (21) days of 

the adoption of these findings and recommendations, should that occur; and 

3. Failure to pay the filing fee in full as directed result in dismissal of this action. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

//// 

//// 

//// 

 

5

 It is not clear what type of action plaintiff purports to be bringing. 

6

 If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, a plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee 

but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not 

required to pay the $50.00 administrative fee. 

Case 2:15-cv-01993-WBS-AC Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 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

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: November 28, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01993-WBS-AC Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 Page 5 of 5