(PC) Miller v. Meda ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORRIS DAJON MILLER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00264-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 8) 14 JANET MEDA; ET. AL., 15 Defendant. 16 17 The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion for 18 leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because Plaintiff qualifies as a three-striker under 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and the complaint did not contain sufficient facts to allege imminent danger 20 of serious physical injury. (Doc. 8 at 1-8.) The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff be 21 ordered to pay the full filing fee or face dismissal of the action. (Id. at 8.) The findings and 22 recommendations contained notice that any objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 23 1,8.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on April 4, 2022, consisting of 61-pages, attaching inmate 24 grievances thereto. (Doc. 9.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 27 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff 28 objects, listing numerous, seemingly unrelated reasons to support a finding of imminent physical 1 | injury. (Doc. 9 at 1-4). The reasons Plaintiff lists range from anticipating monetary damages 2 | froma civil lawsuit putting him at risk of retaliation to allegations of sexual assault in public by 3 | correctional officers on March 6, 2021. (See id.). Specifically, Plaintiff believes he is under 4 | imminent danger of serious physical injury because he is “about to win a $2 billion lawsuit” and 5 || correctional officers “keep threatening [his] life.” (/d. at 1.) He states he is further in danger 6 || because he has “severe restrictive ventilatory defect.” Ud. at 2, 59.) Elsewhere Plaintiff requests 7 | that the Court confirm with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arizona 8 | that he will soon be compensated $800,000.00 and as a result he is not safe in the prison. □□□□ at 9 | 2-3.) None of these allegations relate to the allegations set forth in the Complaint concerning 10 | deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical condition when he was not provided cream to treat 11 | his eczema. (See Doc. 8 at 2 (citing Doc. | at 1-4)). Because there is no nexus between any 12 | imminent danger asserted and the claims alleged in the complaint, the imminent danger exception 13 | of § 1915(g) does not apply. See Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 WL 5255377, at *3 (E.D. 14 | Cal. Sept. 9, 2015) (quoting Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 298-99 (2d Cir. 2009)). 15 | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 24, 2022 (Doc. 8) are adopted in 17 | full. 18 2. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 19 3. Plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 filing fee within 30 days of the date of this order, or this 20 | matter will be summarily dismissed. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _April 25, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28