1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TYRELL AINSWORTH, No. 2:25-cv-1156 DJC AC P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 CDCR, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil action and seeks leave to 17 proceed in forma pauperis under

(a). 18 I. Three Strikes Analysis 19 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

(a). ECF No. 3. 20 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States to 21 authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person 22 who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 23 [i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgement in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the 24 prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 25 States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 26 unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 27 28

(g). The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded 1 from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three 2 frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook, 3

(9th Cir. 1999). 4 “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in forma pauperis] status only 5 when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, 6 the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or 7 failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a 8 district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds that [the claim] is 9 frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ such a complaint 10 is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such dismissal as denial of 11 the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. 12 Price,

(9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original). Dismissal also counts 13 as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it 14 fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an 15 amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. 16 Harris v. Mangum,

(9th Cir. 2017). 17 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff has led to the identification of at least four cases 18 that qualify as strikes. The court takes judicial notice of the following lawsuits filed by plaintiff:1 19 1. Ainsworth v. Frisco, No. 2:18-cv-7682 PSG AGR (C.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on 20 September 14, 2018, as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 21 4)); 22 2. Ainsworth v. Batsakis, No. 2:23-cv-1281 PA AGR (C.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on 23 February 27, 2023, as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 24 4));

25 1 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 26 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) 27 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose 28 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 1 3. Ainsworth v. Macombre, No. 2:23-cv-4263 PA AGR (C.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on 2 July 24, 2023, as frivolous (ECF No. 6)); and 3 4. Ainsworth v. Luna, No. 2:23-cv-4266 PA AGR (C.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on July 4 24, 2023, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 7)). 5 All of the preceding cases were dismissed well in advance of the April 13, 20252 filing of 6 the instant action, and none of the strikes have been overturned.3 Therefore, this court finds that 7 plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of 8 serious physical injury.”

(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have 9 alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at 10 the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes (Cervantes),

(9th 11 Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for 12 purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”). “[T]he imminent danger exception 13 to the PLRA three-strikes provision requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and 14 the violations of law alleged in the complaint,” Ray v. Lara,

, 695 (9th Cir. 2022), 15 and the allegations of such danger must be plausible, Cervantes,

(“the exception 16 applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of 17 serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”). 18 The complaint alleges a broad-ranging conspiracy by a variety of individuals, both within 19 and without the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), that spans 20 multiple years and correctional facilities. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that he is the target of a 21 conspiracy by homosexual staff and inmates who are “attempt[ing] to get [him] to conform to 22 homosexuality.” Id. at 13, 20. The conduct alleged by plaintiff appears to have occurred 23 primarily between 2019 and 2022, at prisons other than the one at which plaintiff was housed 24 2 Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox 25 rule. Houston v. Lack,

(1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court 26 document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for mailing). 27 3 The Ninth Circuit recently found plaintiff to have accrued three strikes under § 1915(g) based on the first three cases. See Ainsworth v. Mazariegos, No. 25-2472 (9th Cir. June 23, 2025), ECF 28 No. 7. 1 || when he filed the complaint. Id. at 6-29. Much of the alleged conduct also fails to demonstrate 2 || any risk of physical harm (e.g., deducting money from plaintiffs trust account, interfering with 3 || his access to the courts, issuing false disciplinaries, etc.). The court cannot identify any 4 || allegations that would demonstrate a plausible, imminent risk of serious physical injury at the 5 || time plaintiff filed the complaint, and the undersigned will therefore recommend that plaintiff be 6 || required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint dismissed. 7 Il. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 8 You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis 9 || status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 10 || the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of 11 || serious physical injury and so it is being recommended that your motion to proceed in forma 12 || pauperis be denied and you be required to pay the whole filing fee at one time. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) be DENIED; and 15 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $405.00 in required fees within thirty days or face 16 || dismissal of the case. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 20 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 21 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 22 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

23 |) (9th Cir. 1991). 24 || DATED: July 17, 2025 ~ 25 Atter— Llar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28