(PC)Calloway v. Youssee, 1:21-cv-01450

Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a § 1983 complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). He also filed a certified inmate trust account statement.
The complaint names 48 defendants (employees at Wasco State Prison or Kern Valley State Prison) and alleges claims including deliberate indifference (hemodialysis, torn rotator cuff, suicidal ideation), retaliation, excessive force, ADA and other statutory violations arising roughly March 2019–July 2020.
At the time the complaint was filed, Calloway was housed at California Health Care Facility, not at the institutions where the alleged misconduct occurred.
The court found Calloway is subject to the three‑strikes rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) based on prior federal dismissals and evaluated whether he met the imminent‑danger exception.
The magistrate judge concluded Calloway did not allege a real, present imminent danger at the time of filing, nor a nexus between any claimed danger at his current institution and the alleged past misconduct, and recommended denying IFP and ordering payment of the $402 filing fee.
The Clerk was ordered to randomly assign a district judge; Calloway was given 14 days to file objections to the findings and recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Calloway qualifies for the § 1915(g) imminent‑danger exception	Calloway alleges ongoing serious medical needs and threats (dialysis, torn rotator cuff, suicidal ideation) that place him in imminent danger	Prior dismissals trigger § 1915(g); alleged harms occurred earlier and do not show present imminent danger	Court: Calloway failed to allege a real, present imminent danger at filing; exception not met
Whether prior dismissals count as strikes under § 1915(g)	Calloway disputes characterization or relevance of prior dismissals	Court took judicial notice of multiple prior dismissals (failure to state, statutes of limitations, frivolous appeals)	Court: multiple dismissals qualify as strikes; § 1915(g) applies
Whether harms that occurred at prior institutions establish danger at current facility (nexus)	Calloway contends ongoing risk or continuing misconduct tied to his medical needs	Defendants argue incidents occurred at other prisons and ceased after July 2020; no traceable risk at current facility	Court: no alleged nexus; danger must be fairly traceable to conduct giving rise to claim and present at filing
Remedy: whether IFP should be denied and fee required	Calloway seeks IFP status to proceed without prepaying the filing fee	Defendants (and court) assert § 1915(g) bars IFP absent imminent danger	Court: recommended denying IFP and ordering payment of $402 filing fee to proceed

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (imminent‑danger exception is assessed based on conditions at time complaint filed)
Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must plead specific facts of ongoing serious injury or pattern showing likelihood of imminent harm)
White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1998) (vague or conclusory assertions of imminent danger are insufficient)
Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009) (discusses nexus/fair‑traceability requirement for imminent danger claims)
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge findings may waive appellate challenges)
Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2015) (statute‑of‑limitations dismissals can count as strikes under § 1915(g))
Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2015) (IFP denial on appeal for frivolousness can count as a strike)