Opinion
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01941-LJO-BAM (PC)
01-08-2016
SEAVON PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN M. SMITH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH SUBMISSION OF $400.00 FILING FEE
Plaintiff Seavon Pierce ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, on December 11, 2015. That same day, he also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)
Plaintiff 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 takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: Seavon Pierce v. Lancaster State Prison, 2:13-CV-08126 (dismissed for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and as malicious); Seavon Pierce v. Fernando Gonzales, et al., 1:10-cv-00285-JLT (dismissed on December 3, 2012 for failure to state a claim); and Seavon Pierce v. President Barack Obama, et al., 1:15-cv-00650-LJO-DLB (dismissed December 1, 2015, for failure to state a claim). --------
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and his allegations do not satisfy the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff seeks to compel Jonathan M. Smith, an officer of the United States Department of Justice, to act with regards to Plaintiff's allegations of public corruption, intentional acts to obstruct justice, and acts upon a class of prisoners as evidenced upon the public record. (ECF No. 1, p. 2.) Plaintiff specifically alleges that he made a complaint in federal district court against certain parties and, through fraud, certain parties were removed from that complaint. He seeks a federal criminal enforcement proceeding regarding the matter. Plaintiff makes no allegations concerning any imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, Plaintiff has not satisfied the exception from the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and must pay the $400.00 filing fee if he wishes to litigate this claim.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; and,
2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8 , 2016
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE