Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-00026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael L. Overton
Plaintiff
Warden
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL L. OVERTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WARDEN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:25-cv-0026 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil action. 

I. Three Strikes Analysis 

Plaintiff has not yet submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this case or 

paid the required filing fee of $350.00 plus the $52.00 administrative fee. However, as explained 

below, plaintiff will not be given the opportunity to submit an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis because he has accrued at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and he has not 

shown that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Instead, the court will 

recommend that plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 in required fees or suffer dismissal of the 

complaint. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States 

to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a 

person who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 

Case 2:25-cv-00026-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 4
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 

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a 

judgement in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more 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). The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded 

from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three 

frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook, 

169 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). 

“[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in forma pauperis] status only 

when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, 

the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or 

failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a 

district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds that [the claim] is 

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ such a complaint 

is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such dismissal as denial of 

the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. 

Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original). Dismissal also counts 

as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it 

fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an 

amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. 

Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2017). 

 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff has led to the identification of at least six cases 

that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the following lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1

1

 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 

judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex 

rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court 

may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 

Case 2:25-cv-00026-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 4
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 

1. Overton v. Stockton Valley S&L, No. 2:04-cv-1874 MCE DAD (E.D. Cal.) (case 

dismissed as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim on December 15, 2004 

(ECF No. 12)); 

2. Overton v. Warden, No. 16-56122 (9th Cir.) (appeal dismissed as frivolous on 

November 13, 2017 (ECF No. 9)); 

3. Overton v. Oakland Raiders Association, No. 3:17-cv-6917 CRB (N.D. Cal.) (case 

dismissed for failure to state a claim on January 22, 2018 (ECF No. 9)); 

4. Overton v. CMF, No. 2:18-cv-0217 TLN KJN (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed as legally 

frivolous on August 23, 2018 (ECF No. 18)); 

5. Overton v. Ash-Exec-Dir., No. 2:18-cv-2915 KJM DMC (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed 

for failure to state a claim on August 20, 2019 (ECF No. 12)); 

6. Overton v. CA Health Care Facility, No. 2:18-cv-2551 JAM DMC (E.D. Cal.) 

(complaint dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 12), 

case dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint on August 8, 2019 (ECF No. 

16)). 

All of the preceding cases were dismissed well in advance of the December 28, 2024 

constructive filing of the instant action, and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, 

this court finds that plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, 

plaintiff must have alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for 

purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”). “[T]he imminent danger exception 

to the PLRA three-strikes provision requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and 

the violations of law alleged in the complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 695 (9th Cir. 2022). 

The complaint alleges that plaintiff represents television personalities Wendy Williams, 

Gayle Johnson, and Tamron Hall and that they have been denied their right to purchase unlimited 

vendor packages for plaintiff, and that his property was set on fire on September 11, 2013. ECF 

Case 2:25-cv-00026-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 4
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 

No. 1 at 1-3. These individuals then attempted to visit plaintiff at the prison, where they were 

shot to death. Id. at 3. There are no allegations that would demonstrate an imminent risk of 

serious physical injury at the time of filing, and the undersigned will therefore recommend that 

plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint dismissed. 

II. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis 

status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of 

serious physical injury and so it is being recommended that you be required to pay the whole 

filing fee at one time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 

assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $405.00 in 

required fees within thirty days or face dismissal of the case. 

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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 10, 2025 

Case 2:25-cv-00026-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4