Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Branden Willie Iseli, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He filed his original complaint on August 17, 2026, a first amended complaint on September 16, 2026, and a second amended complaint on October 8, 2026. He also asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee. The 38-page second amended complaint, like its predecessors, concerns an alleged data breach that the department discovered in January 2022. Iseli alleges that he learned of it in August 2022 through a notice that his personally identifiable information may have been accessed by a third party. He seeks a cash payment of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis if on three or more prior occasions he brought an action or appeal dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The magistrate judge noted that the same court had already determined Iseli to be a three-strikes litigant in an earlier case, No. 2:25-CV-3441, in a ruling adopted on July 22, 2026. The only question was whether this complaint alleged imminent danger. The document is a magistrate judge's order and findings and recommendations, not a ruling by a district judge, and it is not a reported decision.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that Iseli's three-strikes status barred in forma pauperis status unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Relying on Andrews v. Cervantes, the order explained that the exception depends on the circumstances when the complaint was filed. It also explained that an ongoing danger can qualify, such as officials continuing a practice that has injured the prisoner or similarly situated prisoners. The order cited Williams v. Paramo for the same ongoing-danger principle in the appeal context.
Applying those standards, the order found that an alleged breach of protected health information is a serious matter but does not constitute a danger of serious physical injury. It also found the breach not imminent, because it occurred nearly five years before the complaint was filed. Iseli sought money and did not allege any ongoing danger.
As to disposition, the magistrate judge recommended that the in forma pauperis motion be denied. The judge also recommended that Iseli be ordered to pay the full $405 filing fee within thirty days of any order adopting the recommendations, and be advised that noncompliance will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order under Rule 41(b) and Local Rule 110. The only directive actually issued was to the Clerk to assign a district judge randomly. Iseli has twenty-one days after service to file objections, and failing to do so may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner previously designated a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless the complaint shows imminent danger of serious physical injury when it was filed.
- The magistrate judge treated an alleged breach of personal and health information as serious but not a physical danger, and not imminent given its age.
- A complaint that seeks money for a past event and alleges no ongoing practice does not fit the ongoing-danger standard drawn from Andrews v. Cervantes.
- These are recommendations, not final orders; the fee payment requirement and dismissal warning take effect only if the district judge adopts them.
- Objections are due twenty-one days after service, and failing to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's timing rule for the imminent-danger exception in a short, routine way. It shows that a harm described as serious, even one involving health information, does not open the exception unless it threatens physical injury and is present when the complaint is filed. It also shows that an earlier three-strikes determination in the same court carries forward to a later suit by the same plaintiff.
Because this is an unpublished magistrate judge's recommendation that had not been adopted, it carries no precedential weight and decides nothing about the merits of the data breach claims. Whether Iseli pays the fee, and whether the case continues, depends on the district judge's ruling on the recommendations and on his compliance.