Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wilbur L. Pittman filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California against a defendant identified as Warden and others. He asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which would have allowed him to pursue the case without paying the filing fee up front. The order does not describe the underlying civil rights allegations, so it resolves only the question of how the filing fee must be handled.
A magistrate judge reviewed Pittman's litigation history and found that he is subject to the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That finding rested on 27 earlier actions that were dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous. Under that statute, a prisoner with three or more such dismissals generally cannot proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge also found that Pittman did not satisfy the imminent danger exception, and therefore recommended that the motion be denied and that Pittman be directed to pay the filing fee.
The findings and recommendations were issued on September 9, 2026, and docketed as Document 9. The court served them on Pittman and told him that objections were due within 14 days, warning that failure to file objections within that period may result in waiver of rights on appeal, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014). Pittman filed no objections, and the time to do so passed. The order cites both Document 7 and Document 9 when describing the findings, but it adopts Document 9, and that inconsistency does not change the disposition.
The Court’s Holding
Applying 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district judge performed a de novo review of the case. After reviewing the entire file, the court concluded that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. It adopted them in full and denied Pittman's application to proceed in forma pauperis, which appears as Document 2 on the docket.
The court then ordered Pittman to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within 21 days of the date of service of the order. It advised him that failure to pay as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
The order is a ruling on fee status, not a judgment. The court did not dismiss the case and did not evaluate the merits of the section 1983 claims. The action stays open on the condition that the fee is paid; if it is not, dismissal is the stated consequence. The order does not describe any individual strike in detail, and it does not discuss the imminent danger exception beyond adopting the magistrate judge's finding.
Key Takeaways
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has accumulated three or more dismissals for failure to state a claim or frivolousness generally may not proceed in forma pauperis.
- Here the magistrate judge counted 27 qualifying dismissals, and the district judge, after de novo review, found that finding supported by the record.
- The imminent danger exception was found not satisfied, so the plaintiff had to pay the $405.00 fee rather than proceed without prepayment.
- The order denies in forma pauperis status without dismissing the case; the plaintiff has 21 days from service to pay, and nonpayment will lead to dismissal without further notice.
- The plaintiff filed no objections to the findings and recommendations, and the court had warned that failing to object may result in waiver of rights on appeal.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order, so it carries no precedential weight. It applies settled statutory text and does not announce a new rule. Its value is as an illustration of how the Eastern District of California handles prisoner fee applications: a magistrate judge screens litigation history at the outset, issues findings and recommendations, and the district judge adopts them on de novo review when no objection is filed.
For incarcerated litigants, the order shows that a long record of earlier dismissals can end access to fee-waived filing, leaving only the imminent danger exception or full payment. It also shows the practical role of the 14-day objection period, since Pittman's silence left the court with an unchallenged record. What remains open is whether Pittman will pay the fee within 21 days. The merits of his section 1983 claims have not been addressed, and the order says nothing about them.