1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, No. 2:24-cv-02381-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RONALD BROOM, et al.,, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 18 under

. Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a complaint on August 30, 2024, 19 ECF No. 1, and, the same day, moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. A review of 20 court records shows, however, that plaintiff is a “three strikes” litigant. See

(g); 21 Calloway v. Nieves, No. 2:19-cv-1792 KJM CKD P,

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 22 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19-cv-1792 KJM CKD P,

23 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2021); see also Calloway v. Broom, No. 2:24-cv-02445-SCR P,

2897178 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025); Calloway v. Naphcare Inc., No. 2:24-cv-2446 CKD P, 2024

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2024). Plaintiff is therefore precluded from proceeding in 26 forma pauperis in this action unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28

(g). 28 //// 1 The “imminent danger” exception applies at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. 2 Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007) (emphasizing that “it is the circumstances at the 3 time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception to 4 § 1915(g)”). A prisoner’s complaint can demonstrate “imminent danger” by alleging “an ongoing 5 danger.” Id. at 1056–57 (holding that “a prisoner who alleges that prison officials continue[d] 6 with a practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past will satisfy the 7 ‘ongoing danger’ standard”); see also Williams v. Paramo,

(9th Cir. 2015) 8 (“[A] prisoner subject to the three-strikes provision may meet the imminent danger exception and 9 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal if he alleges an ongoing danger at the time the notice of 10 appeal is filed.”). 11 Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the “imminent danger” exception of § 1915(g). In his 12 complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force at CHCF-Stockton, the 13 injuries from which were exacerbated by delays in medical treatment; that he suffered retaliation 14 after filing grievances related to this incident; and that the excessive force incident would not 15 have occurred had correctional staff been required to use body cameras. ECF No. 1 at 8-16. He 16 seeks monetary and punitive damages from the defendants and requests an injunction requiring 17 “all CDCR personnel, custody, and medical staff who deal with the custody and care of 18 inmates/patients to be equipped with body audio/visual cameras.” Id. at 16. 19 Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the undersigned does not find that the complaint 20 alleges that plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury under § 1915(g). In his 21 complaint, plaintiff alleges that the incident of excessive force occurred on September 6, 2022, 22 and that subsequent retaliation, including delays in medical care, occurred from that date until 23 March 18, 2023. ECF No. 1 at 8-15. There is nothing in these allegations indicating that plaintiff 24 is or believes himself to be under imminent risk of a serious physical injury at the present time. 25 See id. Thus, because the alleged harmful practices have long ceased, per plaintiff’s allegations 26 in his complaint, there was no “imminent danger” when plaintiff initiated the action so as to 27 satisfy § 1915(g). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s request for leave to 28 proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 1 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 4 || assign a District Judge to this action. 5 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. Plaintiff?s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF NO. 2) be denied; and 7 2. Plaintiff be granted thirty (30) days from the date of the adoption of this finding 8 | and recommendation to pay the $405 filing fee for this action. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) 11 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 12 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 13 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 14 || the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 15 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 || Dated: December 16, 2025 batted Hema EDMUND F. BRENNAN 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28