Fields v. Samadani

United States District Court, Eastern District of California · January 3, 2025 · No. 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO

Summary

This United States District Court order adopts a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to deny the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court finds that the pro se prisoner-plaintiff has accumulated three prior dismissals and fails to demonstrate an imminent danger exception. Consequently, the court orders the plaintiff to pay the full $405.00 filing fee within thirty days to proceed with his civil rights action.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Decision date
January 3, 2025
Docket number
1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO
Procedural posture
Order adopting magistrate's findings and recommendations denying plaintiff in forma pauperis status and ordering payment of filing fee.
Standard of review
de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

civil rightscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) based on the imminent danger exception.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff is not eligible for in forma pauperis status because he did not demonstrate that he faced imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint.

Key quotations

Thus, plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis and is required to pay the filing fee in full before proceeding any further with this action. (at 13-14)
The findings and recommendations correctly note, the relevant inquiry is whether plaintiff faced imminent danger at the time that he filed his complaint. (at 12)

Factual background

Marcus Brent Fields, an incarcerated plaintiff, alleged that prison officials removed his CPAP machine after a sleep study showed he did not have obstructive sleep apnea. He sought in forma pauperis status, claiming imminent danger, but had accumulated three prior "strikes" and failed to demonstrate the imminent danger exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil‑rights action in the Central District of California, was transferred to the Eastern District, a magistrate judge issued findings recommending denial of in forma pauperis status based on three prior strikes and lack of imminent danger, plaintiff objected, and the district court conducted a de novo review and adopted the findings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…