1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGIA MILES, No. 2:25-cv-2655 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SUSANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil action and seeking leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis under

(a). 20 I. Three Strikes Analysis 21 Plaintiff has not yet submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this case or 22 paid the required filing fee of $350.00 plus the $52.00 administrative fee. However, as explained 23 below, plaintiff will not be given the opportunity to submit an application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis because she has accrued at least three strikes under

(g) and she has not 25 shown that she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Instead, the court will 26 recommend that plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 in required fees or suffer dismissal of the 27 complaint. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United 28 States to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by 1 a person who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However, 2 [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 3 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 4 States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 5 unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 6 7

(g). The plain language of the statute makes clear that a prisoner is precluded 8 from bringing a civil action or an appeal in forma pauperis if the prisoner has brought three 9 frivolous actions and/or appeals (or any combination thereof totaling three). Rodriguez v. Cook, 10

(9th Cir. 1999). 11 “[Section] 1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner’s [in forma pauperis] status only 12 when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing an action, and other relevant information, 13 the district court determines that the action was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious or 14 failed to state a claim.” Andrews v. King,

, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a 15 district court disposes of an in forma pauperis complaint ‘on the grounds that [the claim] is 16 frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,’ such a complaint 17 is ‘dismissed’ for purposes of § 1915(g) even if the district court styles such dismissal as denial of 18 the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. 19 Price,

(9th Cir. 2008) (second alteration in original). Dismissal also counts 20 as a strike under § 1915(g) “when (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it 21 fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an 22 amended complaint” regardless of whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. 23 Harris v. Mangum,

(9th Cir. 2017). 24 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff has led to the identification of at least four cases 25 that qualify as strikes.1 The court takes judicial notice of the following lawsuits filed by 26 27 1 The first page of each complaint reflects that plaintiff was in custody at the time each complaint 28 was filed. 1 plaintiff:2 2 1. Miles v. Andrade, No. 2:19-cv-0402 MCE EFB (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on 3 February 6, 2020, for failure to state a claim and as frivolous (ECF No. 38)); 4 2. Miles v. Laurensen, No. 2:23-cv-0663 KJM AC (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on March 5 28, 2024, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 27)); 6 3. Miles v. Stohlman, No. 2:23-cv-0827 DJC DB (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on March 7 29, 2024, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 12)); and 8 4. Miles v. Inguanzo, No. 2:23-cv-1098 DAD AC (E.D. Cal.) (case dismissed on March 9 18, 2024, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 17)). 10 All of the preceding cases were dismissed well in advance of the August 29, 20253 filing 11 of the instant action, and none of the strikes have been overturned. Therefore, this court finds that 12 plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless she is “under imminent danger of 13 serious physical injury.”

(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have 14 alleged facts that demonstrate that she was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at 15 the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes (Cervantes),

(9th 16 Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for 17 purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception to § 1915(g).”). “[T]he imminent danger exception 18 to the PLRA three-strikes provision requires a nexus between the alleged imminent danger and 19 the violations of law alleged in the complaint,” Ray v. Lara,

, 695 (9th Cir. 2022), 20 and the allegations of such danger must be plausible, Cervantes,

(“the exception 21 applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of 22

23 2 The court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex 24 rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (court 25 may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose 26 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 3 Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, she is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox 27 rule. Houston v. Lack,

(1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for 28 mailing). 1 | serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”). 2 The complaint alleges that plaintiff and her family have been stalked and harassed by the 3 || Lassen County Sheriff's Office and various individuals she identifies as “informants.” ECF No. 4 | 1. She claims that they have been “stalked, falsely arrested, stolen from, towed illegally, titles 5 | frauded, bank accounts hacked,” and funds and scholarships have been taken. Id. at 6, 11, 13, 16- 6 || 23. There are no allegations that would demonstrate a plausible imminent risk of serious physical 7 || injury at the time of filing, and the undersigned will therefore recommend that plaintiff be 8 || required to pay the filing fee in full or have the complaint dismissed. 9 Il. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 10 You have at least three strikes under § 1915(g) and cannot be granted in forma pauperis 11 || status unless you show the court that you were in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 12 || the time you filed the complaint. You have not shown that you were in imminent danger of 13 || serious physical injury and so it is being recommended that your motion to proceed in forma 14 || pauperis be denied and you be required to pay the whole filing fee at one time. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 16 || assign a United States District Judge to this action. 17 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff be ordered to pay the entire $405.00 in 18 || required fees within thirty days or face dismissal of the case. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(I1). Within fourteen days 21 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 22 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 23 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 24 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

25 | (9th Cir. 1991). 26 || DATED: September 22, 2025 4 ten NM, 27 ALLISON CLAIRE 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE