Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02298/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02298-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shu Chinsami
Plaintiff
Jared Lozano
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 

SHU CHINSAMI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JARED LOZANO, Warden, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-2298-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the 

reasons stated below, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated he is eligible to proceed 

in forma pauperis. 

A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis: 

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. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Court records reflect that on at least three prior occasions, plaintiff has 

brought actions while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See (1) Chinsami v. Silbaugh, No. 2:12-cv-2202-

Case 2:19-cv-02298-KJM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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 

DAD (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 12 (July 22, 2013 order dismissing action as frivolous and for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted); (2) Chinsami v. Harrison, No. 2:13-cv-1124-

CKD (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 10 (September 17, 2013 order dismissing action after plaintiff failed 

to submit an amended complaint within allotted time following dismissal of complaint for failure 

to state a claim); (3) Chinsami v. Singh, No. 2:14-cv-461-EFB (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 7 (May 21, 

2014 order dismissing action as frivolous); (4) Chinsami v. Fox, No. 2:16-cv-2461-EFB (E.D. 

Cal.), ECF No. 6 (May 1, 2017 order dismissing action as frivolous); and (5) Chinsami v. Fox, 

No. 2:16-cv-2153 (E.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 7, 10 (July 8, 2019 order dismissing action as frivolous). 

The section 1915(g) exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that 

the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). In this case, plaintiff’s 

filings repeat the allegations that have previously been deemed “frivolous” by this court, i.e., that 

“CDCR illegally planted a computer programmer eye lens.” ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 5 at 1. He 

also alleges that he is being pressured by the warden and a “gay” inmate, who control and harass 

him “day and night” by a “computer speech voice.” ECF No. 5. at 1. Further, he seeks an order 

to relieve him from the court-ordered medication he has been subject to for fifteen years. ECF 

No. 1. at 1. These allegations fail to demonstrate that plaintiff was under an imminent danger of 

serious physical injury when he filed this action. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis must therefore be denied pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff must submit the 

appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a United States 

District Judge to this case. 

Further, because plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and is not eligible to proceed in forma 

pauperis, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) be denied; and 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-02298-KJM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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 

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any 

order adopting these findings and recommendations and be warned that failure to do so will result 

in the dismissal of this action. 

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

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: February 4, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-02298-KJM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 3