1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 3:24-cv-1633-JO-AHG DAVID PERRYMAN 11 CDCR #AB-1204, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 13 vs. FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING 14 FEES REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

(a) 15 CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff David Perryman is a prisoner at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional 20 Facility in San Diego, California. Proceeding pro se, he filed a civil rights complaint 21 pursuant to

and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkts. 1, 22 2. Under § 1915(g), a prisoner with three or more “strikes,” i.e., prior civil cases or appeals 23 dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, “cannot proceed IFP” 24 absent allegations of “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Andrews v. King, 398

, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005);

(g). Perryman admits that he is one 26 of these prisoners but attempts to plead that he is facing imminent danger. See Perryman 27 v. Lynch,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2023) (identifying eight prior strikes 1 || disqualifying Perryman from proceeding IFP). In his September 10, 2024 complaint, 2 Perryman alleges that he suffered a heart attack and broke some of his ribs on July 27, 3 || 2024, and asserts that the follow-up medical care he has been receiving is inadequate and 4 ||ineffective. Jd. at 5. While Plaintiff identifies a past injury and alleges ongoing inadequate 5 || care for those injuries, he does not identify a specific, imminent harm that will result from 6 ||not receiving his preferred treatment. Because generalized fears of possible future harm 7 || do not constitute allegations of specific, imminent dangers, he has not met the requirements 8 ||to proceed IFP in this matter. See Hernandez v. Williams, No. 21-cv-347-MMA-KSC,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021). 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Perryman’s motion to proceed IFP, Dkt. 2, and 11 || DISMISSES this civil action for failure to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee 12 required by

(a). Accordingly, the Court also DENIES Perryman’s motion 13 || for temporary restraining order as moot. Dkt. 6. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court 14 |/to CLOSE this case. 15 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: October 21, 2024 18 19 20 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27