Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roderick Nathaniel Washington filed this action against the California Department of Correction and other defendants on June 25, 2024. His complaint alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated during an October 25, 2023 transport from North Kern State Prison to Ironwood State Prison. He described a lengthy bus ride in restraints, limited bathroom access and water, and the use of paper clothing. He also raised allegations concerning the grievance system, retaliation, racial discrimination, and events during an earlier period of incarceration.
On July 2, 2024, Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim recommended denying Washington's initial application to proceed in forma pauperis under the three-strikes rule, without an imminent-danger exception, and the district judge adopted that recommendation. Washington paid the filing fee. The case was later transferred to the Fresno Division and reassigned to District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. After the district judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and entered judgment, Washington filed notices of appeal and the two applications at ECF Nos. 32 and 41.
Boone explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act permits fee waivers based on inability to pay, but 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars a prisoner with three qualifying prior dismissals from bringing a civil action or appealing a judgment without prepaying fees unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Citing Ninth Circuit decisions, he explained that strike determinations require examination of the dismissing court's action and reasons. He also stated that the danger inquiry concerns circumstances when the complaint was filed and requires a nexus between the alleged danger and the claimed legal violations.
The Court’s Holding
The court took judicial notice of related court records, including Washington v. Early in the Eastern District of California. Those records reflected a March 26, 2003 determination that Washington was a three-strikes litigant. The underlying strikes were three 1995 Washington v. Cambra dismissal orders in the Northern District of California. Boone noted that the earlier cases predated this action and that none of the strikes had been overturned. A footnote also compared prior filings and other records to explain why the court treated the differently identified filings as involving the same plaintiff.
Turning to the statutory exception, the court found that Washington's allegations did not demonstrate imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action on June 25, 2024. The complaint described the October 2023 transport and earlier grievances, but it did not identify a specific danger to Washington's physical safety at the time of filing. The court therefore concluded that the imminent-danger exception did not apply and that Washington had not met his burden under § 1915(g).
Boone recommended that both pending applications to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. This was a recommendation, not a final denial by the district judge. The findings and recommendations were to be submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Washington was given fourteen days after service to file written objections, capped at fifteen pages, with no new exhibits filed with the objections. The order also warned that failure to object on time could waive the right to challenge the magistrate judge's factual findings on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Three qualifying prior dismissals can bar a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis in a new action or on appeal unless the statutory imminent-danger exception applies.
- A court evaluating three-strikes status examines the prior dismissing court's action and reasons rather than relying only on the label given to the dismissal.
- The imminent-danger inquiry focuses on circumstances when the complaint was filed and requires a connection between the alleged danger and the legal violations asserted.
- Washington's account of a past prison transport and earlier grievances did not identify a specific threat to his physical safety on the filing date.
- The magistrate judge recommended denial of both applications, subject to the district judge's consideration and the order's fourteen-day objection procedure.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the PLRA's fee-waiver restriction to applications filed alongside appeals after the underlying complaint had already been dismissed. It shows how a court may use judicially noticed litigation records to establish prior strikes, while separately requiring a filing-date showing of imminent danger before allowing a prisoner with three strikes to proceed without prepayment.
The order also distinguishes the magistrate judge's recommendation from the district judge's ultimate decision. Its objection instructions and appellate-waiver warning define the immediate procedural steps, while the source does not report whether the district judge later adopted, modified, or rejected the recommendation.