David W. Wilson v. Anu Banferjee, et al.

Wilson · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 28, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-00344-HBK (PC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends denying David W. Wilson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court concludes that Wilson had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and that his allegations concerning potential Valley Fever exposure do not plausibly establish imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also orders random assignment of the case to a district judge and recommends dismissal without prejudice if Wilson does not pay the full filing fee.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Helena M. Barch-Kuchta
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
March 28, 2025
Docket number
1:25-cv-00344-HBK (PC)
Procedural posture
A state prisoner filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the IFP motion be denied under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes provision and that the plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee in full.
Standard of review
The court liberally construed the pro se complaint's facial allegations to determine whether plaintiff plausibly alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Precedential value
Nonprecedential; magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in an individual district-court matter.
Parties
David W. Wilson v. Anu Banferjee, Oscar Galloway, Gloria Garcia, Raul Morales, S. Gates, Joseph Bick, Jennifer Barnetty, Jeff McComber
Disposition
other

Topics

prisoners rightssection 1983civil procedureconstitutional law

Practice areas

prisoner civil rightsfederal civil procedurein forma pauperis practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff had accumulated at least three qualifying strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
  2. Whether plaintiff's complaint plausibly alleged that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action, thereby qualifying for the § 1915(g) exception.
  3. Whether plaintiff should be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and required to pay the filing fee in full.

Holdings

  1. The court found that plaintiff had incurred at least three qualifying strikes before filing the present action.
  2. The complaint did not plausibly allege that plaintiff faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.

Key quotations

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in the United States that was dismissed on grounds that it was 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. (at 3)
the PLRA requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the prisoner’s complaint. (at 7)
the “imminent danger” exception exists “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat . . . is real and proximate.” (at 8)

Factual background

David W. Wilson, a California state prisoner housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, alleged that prison officials exposed African American inmates to Valley Fever and failed to provide adequate warnings or housing protections. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Title VII, and state law. Wilson had filed numerous prior federal actions, and the court identified at least three dismissals qualifying as strikes under § 1915(g).

Procedural history

Plaintiff initiated the action on March 24, 2025, and filed an IFP application the same day. The magistrate judge determined that plaintiff had at least three qualifying prior strikes and that the complaint did not plausibly allege imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court ordered random assignment to a district judge and recommended denial of IFP status, with dismissal without prejudice if plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…