From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Newsom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2217-TLN-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-2217-TLN-EFB P

03-19-2020

DEXTER BROWN, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the reasons stated below, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.

A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis:

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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Court records (and plaintiff's own complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2) show that plaintiff has been designated a three-strikes litigant for purposes of § 1915(g). Further, plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts that adequately demonstrate he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must therefore be denied pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action.

See Brown v. Sagireddy, No. 2:17-cv-2041-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2018), ECF No. 14.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges (1) that the Governor is not referring violent crimes inside prisons for prosecution, and (2) that plaintiff was physically assaulted by another inmate on September 18, 2019, but plaintiff then refused an offer to be moved to safety. ECF No. 1 at 2, 6, 9. --------

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 7, 9) be denied; and

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any order adopting these findings and recommendations and be admonished that failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action.

These findings and recommendations are 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 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 19, 2020.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Brown v. Newsom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2217-TLN-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)
Case details for

Brown v. Newsom

Case Details

Full title:DEXTER BROWN, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 19, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-2217-TLN-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)