Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01029/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01029-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Jerome Wright
Plaintiff
Idalberto Zaldivar-Galves
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

KEITH JEROME WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

IDALBERTO ZALDIVAR-GALVES,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-01029 GSA (PC)

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(ECF No. 7)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRSTFILED APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF Nos. 2, 8)

ORDER DISREGARDING AS 

DUPLICATIVE PLAINTIFF’S SECONDFILED APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(ECF No. 9)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. He has filed two motions to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See ECF Nos. 2, 9.

On September 3, 2024, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why he 

should not be required to pay the filing fee in full as a three strikes litigant within the meaning of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 7. For the reasons stated below, the order will be vacated. In 

Case 1:24-cv-01029-JLT-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 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

addition, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, docketed August 29, 2024 (ECF 

No. 2, 8), will be granted, and his in forma pauperis application docketed September 20, 2024 

(ECF No. 9), will be disregarded as duplicative.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s complaint and his application to proceed in forma 

pauperis were docketed. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Shortly thereafter, on September 3, 2024, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause why, consistent with the three strikes rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 

he should not be required to pay the filing fee in full prior to proceeding with this matter. ECF 

No. 7. He was given twenty-one days to respond to the Court’s order. Id. at 4. On the same day, 

Plaintiff’s prisoner trust fund account statement, which must accompany an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)), was docketed. ECF No. 8.

On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ECF No. 9. To date, however, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause.

II. DISCUSSION

A three strikes litigant must pay the filing fee for a complaint in full prior to proceeding 

any further in an action unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time he 

files the complaint, and the imminent harm is related to the violations of right alleged that are 

alleged in the complaint. see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (imminent danger requirement); Ray v. Lara, 

31 F.4th 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2022) (nexus with alleged violations of right requirement). Upon 

further review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court has determined that in the complaint he has 

made an adequate showing – albeit indirectly – that he was in imminent danger of serious 

physical harm at the time he filed it, and that the found imminent danger is directly related to the 

claims in his complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment 

rights stemming from Defendant’s failure to treat his shoulder which left him in pain and with an 

exposed clavicle bone. See ECF No. 1 at 7-11; see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 

1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating imminent danger must exist at time complaint was filed); Ray, 31 

F.4th at 700.

Case 1:24-cv-01029-JLT-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 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

3

Given these findings, the Court will vacate its order to show cause and will grant 

Plaintiff’s first-filed application to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, it will disregard 

Plaintiff’s second-filed in forma pauperis application as duplicative.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order directing Plaintiff to show cause why his application to proceed in forma 

pauperis should not be denied in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (ECF No. 7) is VACATED;

2. Plaintiff’s first-filed application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 

GRANTED, and

3. Plaintiff’s second-filed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is 

DISREGARDED as duplicative.

The Court will screen the complaint in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01029-JLT-GSA Document 10 Filed 09/30/24 Page 3 of 3