(PC) Young v. Broadaus ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZURI SANA KABISA YOUNG, Case No. 1:20-cv-00539-JDP 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., DAYS 15 Defendants. ECF No. 9 16 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 17 ORDER TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 Plaintiff Zuri Sana Kabisa Young is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 21 civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2020, plaintiff filed an 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 9. 23 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil 24 action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or 25 detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was 26 dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 27 may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had three or more actions dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or 1 for failing to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted.1 Plaintiff has repeatedly been 2 notified that he is subject to § 1915(g).2 3 Plaintiff has not satisfied the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g). See Andrews v. 4 Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-55 (9th Cir. 2007). In his complaint, plaintiff appears to allege 5 multiple unrelated claims, including that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure of his 6 property, mail tampering, and a punitive prison transfer. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff does not, 7 however, raise any plausible allegations that he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. 8 Accordingly, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application should be denied, and he should 9 pay the filing fee in full, since he has accrued three or more strikes and was not under imminent 10 danger of serious physical harm at the time this action was initiated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 11 Order 12 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the 13 findings and recommendations. 14 Findings and Recommendations 15 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that: 16 1. plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, ECF No. 9, be denied; 17 2. plaintiff be required to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption 18 of these findings and recommendations; and 19 3. if plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee in full within twenty-one days of adoption of 20 these findings and recommendations, all pending motions be terminated and this action 21 1 See, e.g., Young v. State of California, Civil Case No. 2:99-cv-01039-DFL-JFM, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24346 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 1999) (dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim); Young 22 v. United States Gov’t.., Civil Case No. 2:02-cv-02940-RT-E, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29718 23 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2002) (adopting findings and recommendations to dismiss complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous); Young v. Sumptner, Civil Case No. 2:05-cv-03653- 24 CBM-E, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51300 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2005) (dismissing complaint for failing to state a claim). 25 2 See, e.g., Young v. Williams, No. 19-55513, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32130 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019) (recognizing that plaintiff “has had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed as 26 frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”); Young v. 27 Moore, No. 3:19-cv-00270-MMA-KSC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34208 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) (same); Young v. Paramo, No. 3:18-cv-2002-LAB-KSC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161181 (S.D. 28 Cal. Sep. 18, 2018) (same). wOASe 4. UVM YOY VR MMO OC ee OY VV 1 be dismissed without prejudice. 2 The undersigned submits the findings and recommendations to a district judge under 28 3 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District 4 | Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and 5 || recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with 6 | the court. That document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 | Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 8 | U.S.C. § 636(b)1)(C). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. CN prs senn □□□ _ Dated: _ April 20, 2020 12 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 | No. 204. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28