Jamisi Jermaine Calloway v. Ronald Broom, et al.

No. 2:24-cv-02445 SCR P · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · October 10, 2025 · No. No. 2:24-cv-02445 SCR P

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends denying Jamisi Jermaine Calloway’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he is a three-strikes litigant and the complaint does not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court concludes that the alleged denial of dialysis and ADA services ended approximately ten months before filing and orders the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge; it recommends that plaintiff pay the filing fee within 30 days of adoption.

Holdings

  1. The complaint did not allege imminent danger of serious physical injury because the alleged denial of dialysis and ADA services had ceased approximately ten months before the complaint was filed and therefore did not constitute an ongoing danger at the time of filing.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff, a three-strikes prisoner, alleged an ongoing imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the complaint so as to qualify for the exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
  2. Whether plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied and plaintiff required to pay the filing fee.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Calloway v. Nieves, No. 2:19-cv-1792 KJM CKD P, 2020 WL 6074593 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19-cv-1792 KJM CKD P, 2021 WL 217451 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2021)(followed)
  • Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Calloway v. Naphcare Inc., No. 2:24-cv-2446 CKD P, 2024 WL 4466575 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2024)(analogized)
  • Calloway v. Naphcare Inc., No. 2:24-cv-2446 CKD P, 2024 WL 4374452 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024), reconsideration denied, No. 2:24-cv-2446 DJC CKD, 2025 WL 510324 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2025)(not applicable)
  • Martinez v. □□□□□, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…