(PC)Quiroga v. Gang & Narcotics Task Forces ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO J. QUIROGA, III., ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00627-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 13 v. ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 14 GANG & NARCOTICS TASK FORCES, ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 15 Defendant. ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ) PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED 16 ) ) [ECF No. 4] 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Monica J. Quiroga, III is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On April 30, 2020, this action was transferred from the United States District Court for the 21 Northern District of California. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is pending review. 22 (ECF No. 4.) 23 I. 24 LEGAL STANDARD 25 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) was enacted “to curb frivolous prisoner 26 complaints and appeals.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2011). 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(g) provides that: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the 28 1 prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an 2 action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 3 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 4 imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Therefore, if a prisoner has incurred three or more 5 “strikes” (i.e., three or more cases that were dismissed on the grounds that the cases were frivolous, 6 malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted) before filing a new civil action, 7 the prisoner is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in the new civil action unless the 8 complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical 9 injury” at the time the complaint was filed. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 10 2007); see Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining that, to qualify for the 11 imminent danger exception under § 1915(g), an inmate must provide “specific fact allegations of 12 ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent 13 serious physical injury[]”). 14 II. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff has incurred three or more “strikes” under § 1915(g) 17 prior to filing the instant civil action. The Court take judicial notice of the following United States 18 District Court cases1: (1) Quiroga v. Aguilar, et al., No. 1:15-cv-01202-LJO-MSJ (E.D. Cal.) 19 (dismissed on August 18, 2016, for failure to state a claim); (2) Quiroga v. Food Services, No. 1:15- 20 cv-01203-EPG (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on August 23, 2016, for failure to state a claim); (3) Quiroga v. 21 Youngblood, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00002-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on October 31, 2017, for 22 23 failure to state a claim); and (4) Quiroga v. Youngblood, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00859-DAD-SKO (E.D. 24 Cal.) (dismissed on January 31, 2019, as frivolous and failure to pay filing fee). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 25 application to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied unless his complaint makes a plausible 26 27 1 The Court takes judicial notice of these cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2). See United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007); Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005); 28 1 allegation that he faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he filed his 2 complaint on January 14, 2020. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1053-56. 3 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges in incoherent terms that he is being invaded by some type of 4 technology by various individuals and/or agencies. Plaintiff has clearly not pled any allegations 5 demonstrating that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time Plaintiff filed his 6 complaint. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-57; see White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 7 1998) (stating that “vague and utterly conclusory assertions” of harm are insufficient to establish 8 imminent danger of serious physical harm under § 1915(g)). Therefore, since Plaintiff has not 9 satisfied the imminent danger exception to three-strikes rule of § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s application to 10 proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, Plaintiff 11 must pre-pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. 12 III. 13 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 15 Fresno District Judge to this action. 16 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 4), be DENIED, 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and 19 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this 20 action. 21 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 22 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 24 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 25 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may 27 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson 28 wOAOe □□ □□□ STOUT SAD MUO, Be PO TAY OT Mt v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Ci 1991)). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. ot fe © |] Dated: _ May 4, 2020 OF 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28