Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopts findings and recommendations denying Daniel Harper’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court finds that Harper did not show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action and denies his motion to show inmate danger. The court orders Harper to pay the $405 filing fee within 30 days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis despite having accrued four qualifying strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- Whether plaintiff demonstrated that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint, such that the statutory exception to § 1915(g) applied.
- Whether the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations should be adopted after de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Holdings
- Plaintiff did not establish that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint, so the imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes rule did not apply.
- Plaintiff's four prior dismissals identified by the magistrate judge qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), independently supporting denial of in forma pauperis status absent the imminent-danger exception.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after conducting de novo review.
Key quotations
“allegations are insufficient to show that there is a real and imminent threat to Plaintiff’s personal safety.” (at 2)
“Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.” (at 3)
Factual background
Daniel Harper, a state prisoner housed at Corcoran State Prison, alleged that correctional officers violated his civil rights, including through excessive force. The alleged excessive-force incident occurred approximately seven months before he filed the complaint. Although Harper submitted records concerning an injury, housing, discipline, and prison proceedings, the court found that the materials did not show an ongoing serious physical injury or imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.
Procedural history
The magistrate judge found that plaintiff had accrued four qualifying strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that he had not shown an exception based on imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff did not file specific objections but submitted a motion concerning inmate danger and supporting exhibits. The Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and issued its mandate. The district court then adopted the findings and recommendations in full after de novo review.