Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01085/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01085-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Lee Hill
Plaintiff
Tehachapi State Prison
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

TONY LEE HILL,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

TEHACHAPI STATE PRISON TRUST 

ACCOUNT OFFICE,

 Defendant.

1:16-cv-01085-LJO-EPG-PC

 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING ACTION UNDER 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH

SUBMISSION OF $400.00 FILING FEE 

IN FULL

(ECF Nos. 1, 2.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE 

CASE

I. BACKGROUND

Tony Lee Hill (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

July 28, 2016, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)

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

28 U.S.C. ' 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) 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, 

Case 1:16-cv-01085-LJO-EPG Document 3 Filed 07/29/16 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

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

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

III. ANALYSIS

A review of the 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 Plaintiff was, at the time 

the Complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court has 

found evidence on the Court record of three 1915(g) “strikes” against Plaintiff, which were all 

entered before this action was brought by Plaintiff on July 28, 2016.

1

 The first is case 2:99-cv06406-ABC-CT (Hill v. Wallace, et al.) (CACD), which was dismissed on July 7, 1999, for

failure to state a claim. The second is case 2:11-cv-08794-UA-CW (Hill v. Torrance Police 

Dept., et al.) (CACD), which was dismissed on July 20, 2012 for failure to state a claim. The 

third is case 2:13-cv-00805-UA-CW (Hill v. Horton, et al.) (EDCA), which was dismissed on 

February 28, 2013 for failure to state a claim. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff=s Complaint for this action and finds that Plaintiff does 

not meet the imminent danger exception. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th 

Cir. 2007).2Therefore, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action, and must 

submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff=s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be denied, and this action shall be dismissed, 

without prejudice to refiling with the submission of the $400.00 filing fee in full.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g), Plaintiff=s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this action is DENIED;

 

1 The Court has examined the orders dismissing the five cases and finds that they constitute “strikes” 

within the meaning of § 1915(g). 

2 The Complaint is devoid of any showing that Plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury at the time he filed the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he was given a copy of his prison 

trust account statement which was altered and did not show his correct deposits and withdrawals. Plaintiff claims 

that as a result, he suffered mental anxiety. The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. 

Case 1:16-cv-01085-LJO-EPG Document 3 Filed 07/29/16 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

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to refiling with the submission of 

the $400.00 filing fee in full; and

3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01085-LJO-EPG Document 3 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 3