United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2023

(PC) Melger v. National Rifle Association

(PC) Melger v. National Rifle Association
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided August 21, 2023
(PC) Melger v. National Rifle Association

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS JOSEPH MELGER, No. 2:23-cv-1046 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, et FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the reasons stated below, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.

20 A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis: 21 if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of 22 the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may 23 be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

26 A review of court records reveals that it was determined in Melger v. Sacramento Sheriff Dept., No. 2:21-cv-1611 WBS AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021), that plaintiff has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1 The section 1915(g) exception applies if a complaint makes a plausible allegation that | the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 28 U.S.C. || § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the complaint | does not allege that plaintiff faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time || plaintiff filed the complaint. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis || must therefore be denied pursuant to § 1915(g) and plaintiff must submit the appropriate filing fee || in order to proceed with this action.

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district || court judge to this case.

10 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and 12 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any || order adopting these findings and recommendations.

14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 | (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21 | Dated: August 21, 2023 / ae I / dle ae 22 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || Iks melg1046.3ks

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.