Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05136/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05136-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
The Board of Prison Hearings
Defendant
Earnest Cassell Woods
Plaintiff

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05136-JD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 7, 11

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be deemed three strikes barred and 

the application to proceed in forma pauperis denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff 

does not contest that he has three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff argues that his case 

should be permitted to proceed because he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that “imminent 

danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 

F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The court “should not make an overly detailed inquiry into 

whether the allegations qualify for the exception.” Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055. It is sufficient if 

the complaint “makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious 

physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Id.

1

 

1

The Second Circuit requires that there be a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and one 

or more of the claims for relief asserted in the complaint. See Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 

293, 299 (2d Cir. 2009). In determining whether such a nexus exists, the court will consider “(1) 

whether the imminent danger of serious physical injury that a three-strikes litigant alleges is fairly 

traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a favorable judicial 

outcome would redress that injury.” Id. at 298-99. This would appear consistent with Andrews 

II’s holding that, as long as there is imminent danger anywhere in the complaint, the whole 

complaint can go forward, although Andrews II does not explicitly state that the danger has to be 

Case 3:15-cv-05136-JD Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In this action, plaintiff argues that the Board of Parole Hearings denied him parole in 

retaliation for his prison grievances. He also argues that the state is not properly adhering to its 

policies regarding battered women syndrome and imperfect self-defense. He seeks the state to 

change certain regulations and better train staff and he requests money damages.

Plaintiff argues that he is in imminent danger due to prison officials engaging in an 

ongoing pattern of retaliatory punishment due to his filing of legal grievances. As a result, 

plaintiff has been transferred numerous times to different prisons and the transportation has 

resulted in injury. Plaintiff cites to exhibits concerning reflux disease from 2007 to 2011. 

Plaintiff’s bare allegations fail to demonstrate a plausible allegation of imminent danger. His 

argument concerning imminent danger does not relate to any claim in the complaint, other than he 

seeks to be released from prison so he can be safer. This is insufficient to demonstrate imminent 

danger.2

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 7) and his motion 

not to be three strikes barred (Docket No. 11) are DENIED.

2. To proceed with this action, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee, four hundred 

dollars ($400), within twenty-one (21) days of the date this order is filed or this case will be 

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

 

related to one of the claims for relief.

2

Plaintiff made the same argument for imminent danger in Woods v. The Veterans Administration, 

Case No. 15-cv-05135-JD.

Case 3:15-cv-05136-JD Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05136-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 17, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Earnest Cassell Woods

D58091

P.O. Box 901, A4-233

Imperial, CA 94974 

Dated: February 17, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:15-cv-05136-JD Document 12 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 3