The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01503-JLT-EPG
11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF BE
12 v. REQUIRED TO PAY THE $402.00 FILING
FEE IN FULL IF HE WANTS TO PROCEED
13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WITH THIS ACTION
CORRECTIONS AND
14 REHABILITATION, et al., (ECF No. 1)
15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
16
17
18 Plaintiff Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
19 rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an
20 application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (ECF No. 2).
21 Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this
22 action and because he was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed
23 it, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402 filing fee in full if he wants
24 to proceed with the action.
25 I. THREE-STRIKES PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
26 Pertinent here is the so called “three strikes provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner
27
has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
28 brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on
1 the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
2
injury.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In determining whether a dismissal counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g),
4 “the reviewing court looks to the dismissing court’s action and the reasons underlying it. . . . This
5 means that the procedural mechanism or Rule by which the dismissal is accomplished, while
6 informative, is not dispositive.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal
7 citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has “interpreted the final form of dismissal under the statute,
8 ‘fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ to be essentially synonymous with a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal.” Id. (alteration in original).
9
II. ANALYSIS
10
A. Strikes
11
Plaintiff filed this action on October 23, 2023. (ECF No. 1). The Court takes judicial
12
notice of the following five cases, each of which counts as a “strike”: (1) Caetano v. Kings
13
County Sheriff, et al., 1:22-cv-222-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed March 18, 2022, as frivolous
14
and for failure to state a claim); (2) Caetano v. Kings County Sheriff, et al., 1:22-cv-261-JLT-
15
HBK (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed April 28, 2022, as frivolous); (3) Caetano v. Depository Trust
16
Company, et al., 1:22-cv-679-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed September 30, 2022, as frivolous
17
and for failure to state a claim); (4) Caetano v. Board of State and Community Corrections, et al.,
18
1:22-cv-687-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed May 30, 2023, for failure to state a claim); and
19 (5) Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., 1:22-cv-837-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed
20 June 20, 2023, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim).
21 B. Imminent Danger
22 Because Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing this action, Plaintiff is
23 precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless Plaintiff was, at the time the complaint was
24 filed, in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The availability of the imminent danger
25 exception “turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at
26 some earlier or later time.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).
“Imminent danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative
27
or hypothetical.” Blackman v. Mjening, No. 1:16-CV-01421-LJO-GSA (PC), 2016 WL 5815905,
28
1 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To meet his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide
2 “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct
3 evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048,
4 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague and utterly conclusory assertions” of imminent danger are
insufficient. White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 1998). The “imminent danger”
5
exception is available “for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a threat . . . is
6
real and proximate.” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
7
Additionally, there is a nexus requirement between the danger alleged and the claims
8
asserted: “Thus, in order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes
9
prisoner must allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to
10
unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th
11
692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). Because Plaintiff is pro se, in making the imminent danger
12
determination, the Court must liberally construe Plaintiff’s allegations. Andrews, 493 F.3d at
13
1055.
14
Plaintiff’s complaint sues the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
15
(CDCR) and Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) Warden C. Pfeiffer. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff
16 asserts three claims.
17 Plaintiff’s first claim appears to allege that the CDCR is not sending envelopes to the
18 United States Federal Marshal regarding service of process for his litigation. (Id. at 4).
19 Plaintiff’s second claim is not comprehensible and appears to assert a sovereign-citizen
20 type argument about being both a trust and trustee, culminating in the assertion that he is being
21 unlawfully detained at KVSP. (Id. at 5). This is a similar type of argument that Plaintiff has raised
22 before that other courts have rejected as frivolous. See Caetano v. Internal Revenue Serv., No.
23 1:22-CV-00837-JLT-SAB, 2023 WL 3319158, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2023), report and
recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4087634 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023) (“Even while Plaintiff
24
does not expressly state that he is a ‘sovereign citizen,’ the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations,
25
explanations, and exhibits are all demonstrative of the fact that Plaintiff’s claims are entirely
26
rooted in the ‘Redemptionist’ theory of the sovereign citizen ideology. The ‘Redemptionist’
27
theory is another frivolous legal theory that has been rejected by countless federal courts.”);
28
1 Caetano v. Kings Cnty. Sheriff, No. 1:22-CV-0261 JLT HBK, 2022 WL 1271344, at *3 (E.D.
2 Cal. Apr. 28, 2022), appeal dismissed, No. 22-16067, 2022 WL 18358075 (9th Cir. Aug. 17,
3 2022) (“To the extent Plaintiff's allegations are based on a sovereign citizen ideology—in
4 referring to his body as a ‘Sovereign’ and a vessel—courts uniformly and summarily have
rejected arguments premised on such ideology as frivolous and meritless.”).
5
Plaintiff’s final claim asserts that the CDCR is withholding trust account statements to
6
prevent him from filing litigation. (ECF No. 1, p. 6).
7
Such allegations are insufficient to show that there is a real and imminent threat to
8
Plaintiff’s personal safety under the standards described above. None of these allegations fairly
9
implicate his person safety at all, let alone show ongoing serious physical injury, or a pattern of
10
misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.
11
Accordingly, because Plaintiff is a “three-striker” and does not appear to have been in
12
imminent danger when he filed this action, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be required to
13
pay the $402 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with the action.
14
III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15
The Court concludes that, under § 1915(g), Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in
16 this action.
17 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
18 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (ECF No. 2).
19 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff be directed to pay the $402.00 filing fee in
20 full if he wants to proceed with this action.
21 3. Plaintiff be advised that failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in the dismissal
22 of this case.
23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
24
(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
25
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
26
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
27
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
28
1 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
2
3 TT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated: _ November 27, 2023 [sl hey
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28