Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00997-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Davi
Defendant
A. Espinosa
Defendant
Henry A. Jones
Plaintiff
Bansal Manu
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY A. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANSAL MANU, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-00997-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2) 

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Henry A. Jones is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(IFP). (Doc. 2.) 

Because Plaintiff has accrued three or more “strikes” under section 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 

fails to show that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court will 

recommend that his IFP application be denied. 

I. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs IFP proceedings. The statute 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, malicious, or fails to state 

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 08/30/24 Page 1 of 6
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

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). 

In determining whether a case counts as a “strike,” “the reviewing court looks to the 

dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it.... This means that the procedural 

mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while informative, is not 

dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION 

The Court takes judicial notice1of several prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff in this Court, 

other district courts in this Circuit, and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Eastern District of California

1. Jones v. Macher, No. 1:05-cv-257-OWW-SMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a 

claim on May 26, 2005) 

2. Jones v. Milligan, No. 1:05-cv-307-SMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim 

on October 17, 2008)

Central District of California

3. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:15-cv-6797-MWF-PLA (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP and 

dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on December 4, 2015)

4. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:16-cv-409-TJH-MRW (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP and dismissing 

as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on January 27, 2016)

5. Jones v. Wu, No. 2:16-cv-2698-DDP-SS (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP and dismissing as 

frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on October 4, 2016)

6. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:16-cv-7978-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP and dismissing 

as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on November 8, 2016)

7. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:19-cv-7875-GW-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP and dismissing 

as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on November 4, 2019)

1 The Court may take judicial notice of court records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 

1980).

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 08/30/24 Page 2 of 6
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

Southern District of California

8. Jones v. Hailey, No. 3:20-cv-215-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a 

claim on August 14, 2020)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

9. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 16-56839 (9th Cir.) (appeal dismissed as frivolous on June 13, 

2017)

 A dismissal for a failure to state a claim is a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2011). And an appeal 

dismissed as frivolous constitutes a strike. El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 

2016). Because Plaintiff has incurred at least three prior “strikes, and each was dismissed prior to

the commencement of the current action on August 22, 2024, Plaintiff is subject to the section

1915(g) bar. Moreover, he is precluded from proceeding IFP in this action unless, at the time he 

filed his complaint, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Andrews v. 

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Court has reviewed the complaint in this action and finds that Plaintiff’s allegations 

do not meet the imminent danger exception. Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims against a physician, a correctional sergeant, and an 

associate warden at Valley State Prison. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff appears to allege that his left leg 

began to swell, he had pain in both legs, and they “turn[ed] black” in June 2024. (Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff requested pain medication and “treatment w/respects to the dislodge Brokin lead,”

apparently in reference to his defibrillator leads dislodging in 2021. (Id. at 9, 10.) Dr. Manu

Bansal prescribed Tylenol. (Id. at 3, 10-11.) Plaintiff also alleges a correctional counselor (not 

named as a defendant) falsified an appeal log “to help this Dr. cover up his criminal act.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff states his legs may have to be amputated. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant A. Espinosa 

was deliberately indifferent by denying his reasonable accommodation request and interfering 

with his medical treatment. (Id. at 4.) By “failing to act” and “ha[ving] no doctor’s degree,” 

Espinosa is causing Plaintiff continued pain and sleep deprivation. (Id.; see also id. at 11.) 

Plaintiff contends Associate Warden B. Davi is responsible for reasonable accommodation 

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 08/30/24 Page 3 of 6
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

appeals but failed to “check” that the issue complained of had been addressed correctly. (Id. at 

11.) Plaintiff alleges these “claims are ongoing” and that he has “passed through 4 Prisons, and 

each of them refuse to request for treatment or and referral.” (Id.) Plaintiff states his claims satisfy 

the threshold for imminent danger and he seeks damages, injunctive relief, medical treatment, and 

a transfer. (Doc. 1 at 7, 12.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to establish imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. A denial of pain medication to treat swelling is insufficient to establish Plaintiff is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See, e.g., Harris v. Phillips, No. 1:23-cv-01343-GSAPC, 2023 WL 5956984, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2023) (finding plaintiff’s allegations that on 

“September 7, 2023, one of the Defendants refused to give him medication for his legs and feet” 

and that “he was denied medication for swollen feet” do not amount to imminent danger of 

serious physical injury); Henderson v. Williams, No. 03–CV–0216, 2003 WL 21756336, at *1 

(N.D. Tex. July 30, 2003) (allegations of discontinuance of pain medication and pain and 

swelling in back and groin insufficient to show imminent danger of serious physical injury). 

Unlike situations wherein a plaintiff alleges a complete lack of care for a medical condition, 

Plaintiff disagrees with the course of treatment being offered—he wants something more than 

Tylenol. That disagreement does not amount to an imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

Fletcher v. Sherman, No. 1:18-cv-01350 JLT (PC), 2019 WL 2375148, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 

2019) (finding no imminent danger of serious physical injury where plaintiff alleged that he was 

denied care for pain under his right eye but had received care and appeared to have a difference of 

opinion concerning proper course of treatment for pain).

Plaintiff’s assertion that his legs “may” have to be amputated is purely speculative. See

Thompson v. Borges, No. 17-00561 LEK-KJM, 2018 WL 10139956, at *1 (D. Haw. Jan. 17, 

2018) (plaintiff’s allegations regarding rash that “could have become [gangrene] which could lead 

possibly to amputation or surgery” did not plausibly demonstrate imminent danger of serious 

physical injury); Blackman v. Mjening, No. 1:16-cv-01421-LJO-GSA-PC, 2016 WL 5815905, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) (“Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present 

threat, not merely speculative or hypothetical”); see also Ryan v. Michigan, No. 2:20-CV-12502, 

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 08/30/24 Page 4 of 6
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

2020 WL 6043439, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 13, 2020) (“Plaintiff's concerns about potential future 

harm, such as further nerve damage or muscle loss, paralysis, stroke, heart attack, and death, are 

speculative and are insufficient to satisfy the exception to the three strikes rule. To be sure, he has 

managed to carry on despite having most of his ailments for many years and his complaint 

reflects an ongoing pattern of medical care (although Plaintiff disagrees with the treatment 

provided)”); Nichols v. Peppers-Davis, No. 5:17-CV-00034 KGB/PSH, 2017 WL 8727191, at *2

(E.D. Ark. June 5, 2017) (noting “the Court revoked Nichols’s IFP status and dismissed [a 

previous] case after the Court determined Nichols was not in imminent danger despite the 

allegation that his feet may have to be ‘amputated and/or permanently destroyed’”); White v. 

Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998) (“vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of 

imminent danger are insufficient). 

To the extent Plaintiff relies on issues concerning his defibrillator, those claims were the 

subject of numerous prior lawsuits dismissed by other courts, including findings that no imminent 

danger of serious physical injury was presented. (See, e.g., Docket, Jones v. Kalinjia, No. 2:23-

cv-00186-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal.), Report and Recommendation issued March 5, 2024 [addressing 

same and stating: “It appears, rather, that since this alleged condition first presented itself in 

March 2020, multiple doctors at different facilities have examined plaintiff, including by 

reviewing x-rays for his chest, and none have found cause for further intervention”].) 

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). Here, Plaintiff’s medical conditions do not present a genuine emergency where time is 

pressing, and a threat is real and proximate. Therefore, Plaintiff should be precluded from 

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1052-53.

III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this 

action. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff’s application or motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 2) be DENIED; and

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 08/30/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within 30 days.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 

service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00997-JLT-SKO Document 6 Filed 08/30/24 Page 6 of 6