1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, No. 1:25-cv-01359 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE 14 BHAVSAR, et al., DENIED 15 Defendants. (Docs. 2, 8) 16 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to

(g) and that 20 Plaintiff be required to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Doc. 8.) 21 Plaintiff timely filed objections.1 (Doc. 9.) 22 Plaintiff argues that he is in imminent danger because he is at risk of future injury. (Doc. 23 9.) Plaintiff contends he is in imminent danger because he was durable medical equipment 24 devices on a temporary rather than permanent basis and because he is still at the same facility, 25 building, and housing cell-section with the defendants responsible for the injuries he suffered. 26 Also, the Facility’s Registered Nurses, though not named as defendants in this action, have made 27 1 With his objections, Plaintiff filed a request to disqualify the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. 9, pp. 13–15.) The 28 filing was construed as a motion to disqualify judge and was addressed by separate order. (Doc. 10.) 1 | Plaintiff aware that any refusals to attend treatments or appointments may result in his mobility 2 | devices being discontinued. (d.) 3 Plaintiff's objections do not undermine the magistrate judge’s reasoning. “Imminent 4 | danger of serious physical injury must be a real, present threat, not merely speculative or 5 | hypothetical.” Blackman vy. Mjening,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016). To meet 6 | his burden under § 1915(g), Plaintiff must provide “specific fact allegations of ongoing serious 7 | physical injury, or a pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical 8 | injury.” Martin v. Shelton,

, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “[V]ague and utterly conclusory 9 | assertions” of imminent danger are insufficient. White v. Colorado,

, 1231-32 10 | (10th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs allegations do not support a finding that Plaintiff is at risk of a non- 11 | speculative serious physical injury now or at the time the complaint was filed. 12 To the extent Plaintiff raises arguments regarding his efforts to exhaust his administrative 13 | remedies prior to filing the complaint, the issue of exhaustion is not relevant to the Court’s 14 | finding that Plaintiff does not meet the imminent danger exception. 15 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 16 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court 17 | concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record 18 | and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 22, 2025, (Doc. 9), are ADOPTED 20 IN FULL. 21 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), is DENIED. 22 3. Within 21 days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $405.00 23 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within 24 the specified time, this action will be dismissed without further notice. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _November 14, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28