1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 LEON LEE MEYERS, Case No. 25-cv-06996-JD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 8 Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 9 9 AVINA, et al., Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. 13 Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but it appears that he is three- 14 strikes barred and cannot proceed IFP pursuant to

(g), unless he is under 15 imminent danger of serious physical injury. 16 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil 17 action or appeal a civil judgment under

“if the prisoner has, on three or more 18 prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a 19 court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails 20 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of 21 serious physical injury.”

(g). 22 The plain language of the imminent danger clause in Section 1915(g) indicates that 23 “imminent danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint. See Andrews v. 24 Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit has also found that 25 “the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g) requires a nexus between the alleged imminent 26 danger and a prisoner’s complaint.” Ray v. Lara,

(9th Cir. 2022). The Ninth 27 Circuit adopted the Second Circuit’s “nexus test” from Pettus v. Morgenthau,

, 299 1 three-strikes litigant alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and 2 (2) whether a favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury. Ray,

. “Thus, 3 in order to qualify for the § 1915(g) imminent danger exception, a three-strikes prisoner must 4 allege imminent danger of serious physical injury that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct 5 alleged in his complaint and redressable by the court.” Id. 6 The following four cases are strikes pursuant to Section 1915(g):

7 1. Meyers v. Hurley, Case No. 11-cv-4282 TEH (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state 8 a claim).

9 2. Meyers v. Hurley, Case No. 12-16124 (9th Cir.) (dismissed after the Circuit determined the appeal was frivolous and plaintiff failed to comply with the order to pay the filing 10 fee).

11 3. Meyers v. Alameda County Sheriff, Case No. 09-cv-857 TEH (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed 12 for failure to state a claim).

13 4. Meyers v. Brooms, Case No. 07-cv-4457 TEH (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Meyers v. Brooms,

App’x. 628 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).

15 Plaintiff must show cause why the IFP application should not be denied. He may address 16 the strike cases above or demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 17 The Court notes that plaintiff included a declaration of imminent danger. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff 18 states that he is in imminent danger due to prison officials attempting to place a cellmate with him. 19 He contends that officials are attempting to place cellmates with him who are violent or sexual 20 predators but provides few allegations in support. He states he and a cellmate “got into a scuffle” 21 and other cellmates were stealing his personal items. Dkt. No. 4 at 4. Plaintiff must present more 22 specific allegations demonstrating that he was under imminent danger when he filed the 23 complaint. He should describe the threats from other inmates, what occurred in the scuffle with 24 his cellmate, and how the named defendants in this action were responsible. 25 1. Plaintiff will show cause within twenty-eight (28) days, why this case should not be 26 deemed three strikes barred and the application to proceed IFP denied. In the alternative, plaintiff 27 1 of this action. 2 2. Plaintiffs brief motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 2) is denied without 3 prejudice. Plaintiff does not present any arguments regarding why he meets the legal standards for 4 || such a remedy or how the named defendants in this action can provide relief. He may file an 5 amended motion with more details. The motion to file a supplemental complaint (Dkt. No. 9) is 6 || granted. If plaintiff is granted IFP status or pays the filing fee, the Court will review the original 7 || complaint and the supplement. 8 3. It is the plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 9 || Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 10 || of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 11 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 12 Civil Procedure 41(b). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 21, 2025

16 L, 5 JAMES ATO nited Sfates District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28