1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTORIA CHRISTOPHER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00566 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 14 MOTZ, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS 15 Defendants. (Docs. 2, 6) 16 17 Victoria Christopher is a state prisoner and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to

. (Doc. 2.) The assigned magistrate judge 19 found Plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar of

(g), after identifying three 20 actions that the Court dismissed prior to the filing of this action. (Doc. 6 at 1-2.) The magistrate 21 judge also determined Plaintiff did not allege facts in the complaint supporting a conclusion that 22 she was in imminent danger, as required to qualify for the exception to Section 1915(g). (Id. at 23 2.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 24 forma pauperis and direct her to pay the filing fee. (Id.) 25 Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 9.) She 26 asserts that because she is incarcerated, she is unable to provide for herself and unable to pay the 27 filing fee. (Doc. 9 at 1.) Plaintiff contends that she has “never brought anything before this court 28 that was frivolous, malicious, or lacking a claim.” (Id. at 4.) She also asserts that she is suffering 1 from “mental, emotional, and spiritual wrongs and abuses,” which are “[t]he leading cause of 2 suicide.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff argues, “It is unreasonable and irrational to [find] that mental, 3 emotional, and spiritual abuse cannot result in imminent physical harm and danger.” (Id. at 2, 4 cleaned up.) She maintains that the strip search, the basis of claims raised in the complaint (Doc. 5 1 at 3), shows that she is in imminent danger and suffers harassment from the CDCR employees. 6 (Id. at 2-3.) 7 Plaintiff’s objections do not undermine the findings of the magistrate judge. Plaintiff’s 8 assertion that she did not file any actions that were “lacking a claim,” is contradicted by the 9 Court’s records. As the magistrate judge observed, the Court found Plaintiff to state cognizable 10 claims in the following actions: (1) Christopher v. Clark, Case No. 1:11-cv-02098-JLT (E.D. 11 Cal.) (dismissed on April 10, 2012); (2) Christopher v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., Case No. 12 1:11-cv-02096-MJS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 4, 2012); and (3) Christopher v. Ashworth, 13 Case No. 1:11-cv-02097-DLB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 6, 2013). Plaintiff does not show 14 the dismissals in these actions—each following findings that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable 15 claim—do not qualify as strikes under Section 1915(g). See Harris v. Mangum,

, 16 1143 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 In addition, Plaintiff fails to show that she is in imminent danger of physical harm based 18 upon the allegations in the complaint or made in the objections. “Imminent danger of serious 19 physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or hypothetical.” Blackman 20 v. Mjening,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To meet her burden under 21 § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious physical injury, or a 22 pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” Martin v. 23 Shelton,

, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague and utterly conclusory assertions” of 24 imminent danger are insufficient. White v. Colorado,

, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 1998). 25 While Plaintiff alleges that emotional, mental, and spiritual abuses such as those she has suffered 26 can be physically detrimental, at no point does Plaintiff allege that she is in imminent danger of 27 suffering from such physical harm. Her allegations of past events do not show a pattern of 28 misconduct, and do not support a finding that Plaintiff was at risk of a serious physical injury at 1 | the time the complaint was filed. 2 According to

(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 3 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to 4 | be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 15, 2025 (Doc. 6) are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 8 3. Within 30 days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay 9 the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. 10 Failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action 11 without prejudice. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ June 12, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28