Opinion

(PC) Quair v. Thomas

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 13, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.7%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01397-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14 THOMAS, et al., (Doc. 2)

15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE

16 Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge

17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18 § 1915. (Doc. 2.) Because Plaintiff has accrued three “strikes” under section 1915(g) and fails to

19 show that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Court recommends that his

20 motion be denied.

21 I. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915

22 28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs in forma pauperis proceedings. The statute provides, “[i]n no

23 event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

24 prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a

25 court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails

26 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

27 of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1 II. DISCUSSION

2 The Court takes judicial notice of three of Plaintiff’s prior actions that were dismissed for

3 failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted1: (1) Quair, Sr. v. Vento, et al., No. 1:14-cv-

4 01616-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. March 21, 2017); (2) Quair v. Board of Supervisors, et al., No.

5 1:19-cv-00902-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2020); and (3) Quair v. Board of Supervisors, et al.,

6 No. 1:19-cv-00993-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020). Each of these cases was dismissed

7 before Plaintiff initiated the current action on September 20, 2021. Plaintiff is therefore precluded

8 from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he was under imminent danger of serious physical

9 injury at the time he filed his complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th

10 Cir. 2007).

11 Plaintiff alleges officials at Kings County Jail denied him access to the courts and

12 retaliated against him for filing grievances and a lawsuit regarding the jail’s COVID-19-related

13 policies. (See Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that he was under imminent danger of

14 serious physical injury at the time he filed suit.

15 In an abundance of caution, the Court issued Plaintiff an order to show cause why his

16 motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a response on

17 October 12, 2021. (Doc. 6.) Therein, Plaintiff does not allege or argue that he was in imminent

18 danger of physical injury when he filed suit. Rather, he states that he “went crazy for . . . 9-11

19 days” and “could not follow through” on Case No. 1:19-cv-00993-DAD-BAM. (Id. at 1-2.)

20 Plaintiff’s response does not call into question that this case or any of the other cases named

21 above were dismissed for failure to state a claim.

22 III. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ORDER

23 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

24 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED; and,

25 2. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the

26 filing fee.

27 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action.

1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

2 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of

3 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

4 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

5 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in

6 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

7 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 Dated: October 13, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.