“[T]he imminent danger exception to § 1915(g) requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and a prisoner’s complaint.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he imminent danger exception to § 1915(g) requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and a prisoner’s complaint.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAMARR RENE BOBBY NELSON Case No. 2:25-cv-04073-SB-SHK
PERKINS, Case No. 2:25-cv-04158-SB-SHK
Case No. 2:25-cv-04159-SB-SHK
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
v. THE CASES SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
TASHA BROWN et al.,
PAY THE FILING FEE
Defendants.
LAMARR RENE BOBBY NELSON
PERKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLORIA ALLRED et al.,
Defendants.
LAMARR RENE BOBBY NELSON
PERKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY MORENO HERNANDEZ et
al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Lamarr Rene Bobby Nelson Perkins, a self-represented prisoner at
the Los Angeles County Jail, filed three complaints on May 5, 2025 without paying
the required filing fees or submitting requests to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
In each case, the clerk’s office notified him of the deficiency and directed him to
either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP request within 30 days, noting that failure
to do so within 30 days may result in dismissal.
However, a prisoner1 may not proceed IFP if, “on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, [he] brought an action . . . that was
dismissed on 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 injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff, therefore, cannot proceed IFP. He has accumulated five “strikes”
under § 1915(g)—i.e., filed five actions while in jail that were dismissed as
frivolous. Nelson v. Starr, No. 2:25-cv-01407-SB (C.D. Cal.); Nelson v. Biden,
No. 2:25-cv-03601-SB (C.D. Cal.); Nelson v. Harris, No. 2:25-cv-03602-SB (C.D.
Cal.), Nelson v. Gonzalez, No. 2:25-cv-03462-SB (C.D. Cal.); Nelson v. Mai, No.
2:25-cv-03599-SB (C.D. Cal.).2 Nor do any of his complaints allege an “imminent
danger of serious physical injury” that would exempt him from the three-strikes
rule.3 See Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he imminent danger
exception to § 1915(g) requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and
a prisoner’s complaint.”). To proceed, he must pay the filing fee for each action
that he is pursuing, and failure to do so in any action will result in its dismissal.
1 Prisoner is defined broadly to include “any person incarcerated or detained in any
facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent
for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation,
pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h).
2 Plaintiff refers to himself interchangeably as Lamarr Rene Bobby Nelson, Lamarr
Perkins, Lamarr Rene Perkins, and Lamarr Rene Bobby Nelson Perkins. See, e.g.,
Perkins v. Allred, No. 2:25-cv-04158-SB (C.D. Cal), Dkt. No. 1 at 7 of 10
(identifying his various names).
3 Perkins v. Brown, No. 2:25-cv-04073-SB (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1 (alleging, inter
alia, he was not sent free magazines, his music was stolen, and he was not paid for
certain business ventures); Allred, Dkt. No. 1 (alleging, inter alia, his property was
stolen and he was defrauded); Perkins v. Hernandez, No. 2:25-cv-04159-SB (C.D.
Cal.), Dkt. No. 1 (alleging, inter alia, he was denied a phone call and shower in jail,
his public defender performed deficiently, and money was stolen from him).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to pay the filing fee in each one of these
actions by June 27, 2025. Failure to do so will result in dismissal without
prejudice.
Date: June 2, 2025 ___________________________
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge