# (PC) Jones v. Manu

> District Court, E.D. California · October 21, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638108

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 21, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638108

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 HENRY A. JONES, Case No.: 1:24-cv-0997 JLT SKO
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING
14 BANSAL MANU, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE

15 Defendants. (Docs. 2, 6)

16
17 Henry A. Jones seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, asserting violations of
18 his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff has
19 accrued three or more strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, identifying the following actions that were
20 dismissed prior to the filing of this action:

21 1. Jones v. Macher, No. 1:05-cv-257-OWW-SMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed
for failure to state a claim on May 26, 2005)
22
2. Jones v. Milligan, No. 1:05-cv-307-SMS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed for
23 failure to state a claim on October 17, 2008)

24 3. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:15-cv-6797-MWF-PLA (C.D. Cal.) (denying
IFP and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on
25 December 4, 2015)

26 4. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:16-cv-409-TJH-MRW (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP
and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on
27 January 27, 2016)
1 dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on October 4,
2016)
2
6. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:16-cv-7978-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP
3 and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on
November 8, 2016)
4
7. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 2:19-cv-7875-GW-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (denying IFP
5 and dismissing as frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim on
November 4, 2019)
6
8. Jones v. Hailey, No. 3:20-cv-215-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.) (dismissed for
7 failure to state a claim on August 14, 2020)

8 9. Jones v. Pregerson, No. 16-56839 (9th Cir.) (appeal dismissed as frivolous
on June 13, 2017)
9
10 (Doc. 6 at 2-3.) Thus, the magistrate judge found “Plaintiff is subject to the section 1915(g) bar.”
11 (Id. at 3.)
12 In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not satisfy “the imminent danger
13 exception.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s alleged “denial of pain medication
14 to treat swelling is insufficient to establish Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical
15 injury.” (Id. at 4, citing, e.g., Harris v. Phillips, 2023 WL 5956984, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12,
16 2023) [allegations that “one of the Defendants refused to give him medication for his legs and
17 feet” and that “he was denied medication for swollen feet” did not amount to imminent danger of
18 serious physical injury].) The magistrate judge observed that while Plaintiff wanted more than
19 Tylenol for treatment, his disagreement “with the course of treatment being offered… does not
20 amount to an imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Id., citing Fletcher v. Sherman, 2019
21 WL 2375148, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019).) Furthermore, the magistrate judge found
22 “Plaintiff’s assertion that his legs ‘may’ have to be amputated is purely speculative.” (Id. at 4.)
23 Finally, the magistrate judge found, “to the extent Plaintiff relies on issues concerning his
24 defibrillator, those claims were the subject of numerous prior lawsuits dismissed by other courts,
25 including findings that no imminent danger of serious physical injury was presented.” (Id., citing
26 Jones v. Kalinjia, No. 2:23- cv-00186-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal March 5, 2024)). The magistrate judge
27 found Plaintiff’s medical conditions “do not present a genuine emergency where time is pressing,
and a threat that is real and proximate.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended
1 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and he be directed to pay the filing fee.
2 (Id. at 5-6.)
3 Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on September 10, 2024
4 (Doc. 7), which were followed by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 8). After the Ninth Circuit
5 dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 11), Plaintiff again filed a document indicating
6 his objections on September 25, 2024 (Doc. 12.) In his objections, Plaintiff indicates that he was
7 diagnosed with neuropathy, and this satisfies the “imminent danger” exception. (Doc. 7 at 1,
8 citing, Price v. Igbal, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129655 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2021); Hamby v. Parker,
9 307 F. Supp. 3d 822 (M.D. Tenn. 2018); Foster v. Ohio D.R.C., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24492
10 (S.D. Oh. Feb. 13, 2023); Doss v. Corizon Health Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77042 (N.D. Fl.
11 May 11, 2015).) In addition, Plaintiff asserts a belief that denial of his motion to proceed in
12 forma pauperis is “in retaliation” for his filing of a civil rights action against Judge Dean
13 Pregerson. (Id.)
14 Significantly, Plaintiff’s assertion that the Court’s ruling is retaliatory for a complaint
15 against Judge Pregerson is unfounded. This Court is in a different district and has no connection
16 to his case against Judge Pregerson in the Central District, or Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal to the
17 Ninth Circuit. There is clearly no showing of bias by this Court. Rather, this Court limited its
18 review of the prior cases—including those against Judge Pregerson—to determine whether the
19 dismissals qualified as strikes under Section 1915.
20 Plaintiff also fails to show that his diagnosis alone of neuropathy supports a conclusion
21 that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Although Plaintiff cites several cases in
22 which plaintiffs with neuropathy were permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, he fails to explain
23 how the cases are like the facts and allegations now before the Court. Indeed, the Court’s review
24 of the allegations indicates several of the cases may be distinguished. In Price, Foster, and
25 Hambly, the plaintiffs reported their conditions were untreated. See Price, 2021 U.S. Dist.
26 LEXIS 129655, at *8 (holding the plaintiff’s “allegation that he suffers untreated neuropathic
27 pain and is at risk of falling is sufficient to support an inference of imminent danger of serious
1 | allegation that “prison medical staff have left untreated his chronic pain conditions, which include
2 | neuropathy” [emphasis added]); Hamby, 307 F.Supp.3d at 826 (addressing allegations that the
3 | defendants “refused any treatment or medication” for the plaintiff's “severe neuropathy”). In
4 | contrast, here, Plaintiff is receiving pain medication, though he disagrees with the treatment
5 | provided. Distinguishing plaintiffs from those not receiving treatment and those plaintiffs who
6 | are receiving treatment but believe it is inadequate—such as Plaintiff— is supported by Doss. In
7 | Doss, the court denied a request to proceed in forma pauperis because the plaintiff was receiving
8 | medication for his neuropathic pain, though he disagreed with the treatment. See Doss, 2015 U.S.
9 | Dist. LEXIS 77042, at *13 (“Taken as a whole, Plaintiff's complaint takes issue with the
10 | medications he has been provided for neuropathy pain, but that is not a basis for imminent
11 | danger.”) Consequently, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to show that his neuropathy itself show he
12 || satisfies the “imminent danger” exception.
13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.
14 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiffs objections, the Court concludes the
15 | Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the
16 | Court ORDERS:
17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued August 30, 2024 (Doc. 6) are
18 ADOPTED in full.
19 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
20 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the full $405 filing fee for this action within 30 days of the
21 date of service of this order.
22 4. Failure to pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 Dated: _ October 21, 2024 Charis [Tourn
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638108. Public record. Not legal advice.