(PC) Cohea v. Davey ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY JAMES COHEA, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-01281-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE 13 v. ) TO PAY THE REQUIRED FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER ) 14 DAVE DAVEY, et al., ) (Doc. No. 16) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Danney James Cohea is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On September 28, 2020, the undersigned directed plaintiff to pay $400.00 filing within twenty- 20 one days or the action would be dismissed. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee 21 required for this action and the time period to do has now passed. 22 Instead of paying the filing fee, plaintiff submitted an additional pleading “further attesting to 23 under imminent danger exception at the time of complaint’s e-filing.” (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff again 24 contends that he qualifies for the “imminent danger” exception to the three-strikes bar given the 25 “ongoing pattern,” “ongoing practice,” and “ongoing danger” he faces due to the false “R” and “IEX” 26 suffixes. (See id. at 6, 8, 13.) However, plaintiff essentially raises the same allegations and arguments 27 that the undersigned, the assigned magistrate judge, and the Ninth Circuit have rejected. (See Doc. 28 Nos. 3, 4, 7, 15, 16.) As this court previously discussed, the incidents referenced by plaintiff occurred 1 || over a period of years, none of which suggest that he was in imminent danger when he initiated this 2 || action. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “the availability 3 || of the [imminent-danger] exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint 4 || was filed, not at some earlier or later time”). Plaintiff has repeatedly expressed his disagreement with 5 || the court’s decision in this regard, but the fact remains that he has failed to demonstrate he was in 6 imminent danger when he initiated this action and thus, the “imminent danger” exception does not 7 || apply. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The instant action is dismissed, without prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to comply 10 with a court order and his failure to pay the required filing fee; and 11 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action. 12 13 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ae 14 Dated: _ January 22, 2021 Yi AL Aaya 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28