Morley v. Naphcare Medical Department

FILED IN THE 2 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON Sep 26, 2024 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SHANNON BRUCE MORLEY, NO: 2:24-CV-0254-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO 9 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR NAPHCARE MEDICAL FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

13 By Order filed August 27, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff, then a pro se pretrial detainee at Spokane County Detention Services, to show cause why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted. ECFF No. 6. In the alternative, Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to pay the $405.00 fee ($350.00 filing fee plus $55.00 administration fee) to proceed with this action.

18 On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a Response, ECF No. 10, purportedly mailed from Eugene, Washington, although the return zip code indicates that it was mailed from Eugene, Oregon. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff subsequently inquired about the status of his case, notifying the Court of another change of address to Salem, Oregon. ECF Nos. 12 and 13.

3 Mr. Morley does not refute the Court’s finding that he has three or more “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Rather, he complains that while he was housed at Spokane County Detention Services between June 5, and August 28, 2024, his medication was not dispensed as prescribed, and as a result, his “metabolism system attacked [his] internal organs and put [his] entire body, mind and soul in a cyclone of damaging lack of hormone damage to [his] body.” ECF No. 10 at 1.

9 These conclusory assertions are insufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical injury on July 25, 2024, when he submitted his complaint to the Court. ECF No. 1. Consequently, he has failed to overcome the preclusive effects of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing imminent danger exception to three-strikes rule).

15 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED: 16 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

17 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914.

19 // // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, || enter judgment, forward a copy to Plaintiff at his last known address, and close the 3|| file. The Court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good 4|| faith.

5 DATED September 26, 2024.

Kies | Qe Grrs> United States District Judge ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND