United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED (ECF NO. 2)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sedric Eugene Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 6,
2020 in the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On
January 8, 2020, this action was transferred to this Court.
(ECF No. 4.)
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, filed on January 6, 2020.
(ECF No. 2.)
is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that
“[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action .
. . 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 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.”
the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds
that his allegations do not satisfy the imminent danger
exception to § 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes,
493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007). In his complaint,
Plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to grant
Plaintiff's Public Records Act request,
“facilitated away” money from Plaintiff's
trust account so that Plaintiff's records request would
be denied, and failed to properly process Plaintiff's
numerous administrative appeals in order to aid in a cover-up
of the fact that Plaintiff was previously physically
assaulted and subjected to mental and emotional distress.
However, these allegations fail to establish that Plaintiff
was in any imminent danger of serious physical injury at the
time he filed this action on January 6, 2020. Therefore,
since Plaintiff has not satisfied the imminent danger
exception to § 1915(g), Plaintiff is precluded from
proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. If
Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, Plaintiff must
pay the $400.00 filing fee in full.
the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly
assign a District Judge to this action.
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g); and
2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full
in order to proceed with this action.
findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen (14) days after being served with
these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
written objections with the Court. The document should be
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised
that the failure to file objections within the specified time
may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the
magistrate's factual findings” on appeal.
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,
1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
 The Court takes judicial notice of the
following United States District Court cases: (1) Johnson
v. San Diego Ctny. Sheriff's Dep't, No.
3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed on October 28,
2016 for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute,
after Plaintiff's failure to file a second amended
complaint following a screening order dismissing
Plaintiff's first amended complaint for failure to state
a claim); (2) Johnson v. Doe, No.
3:17-cv-01309-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed on February 12,
2018 for failure to state a claim and for seeking monetary
damages against immune defendants where immunity defense was
apparent on the face of Plaintiff's first amended
complaint); (3) Johnson v. Centinela State Prison,
No. 3:17-cv-02568-CAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed on March 9,
2018 as frivolous); and (4) Johnson v. Doe, No.
3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 8, 2018
for failure to state a claim). See Harris v. Harris,
935 F.3d 670, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that dismissal
on immunity grounds may qualify as a strike for failure to
state a claim where the immunity defense is clear on the face
of the complaint); Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133,
1143 (9th Cir. ...