(PC) Gonzales v. Harmon, 1:21-cv-00796

Michael Gonzales, a pro se plaintiff proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis in July 2021.
The court recognized Gonzales has multiple prior federal-dismissed actions that qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Gonzales alleges defendants Harmon, John Doe, and Hernandez retaliated against him and are placing him at risk by arranging assaults by 2-5er gang members and ignoring his requests for transfer.
The court determined Gonzales’s allegations meet the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g) as of the time of filing.
The court granted Gonzales’s IFP motion and ordered payment of the $350 statutory filing fee collected by the CDCR at 20% of the preceding month’s income whenever the inmate account exceeds $10 until the fee is paid.
The Clerk was directed to serve the order and IFP materials on the CDCR Director and the Court’s Financial Department.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1915(g) bars IFP status or the imminent-danger exception applies	Gonzales alleges ongoing threats and risk of assault constituting imminent danger	Prior qualifying strikes would bar IFP unless imminent danger is shown	Court found the imminent-danger exception applies and granted IFP
How the filing fee is to be collected under §1915(b)	Gonzales proceeded under §1915 and is subject to statutory collection procedures	CDCR must collect 20% of preceding month’s income and forward payments when account > $10 until $350 is paid	Court ordered CDCR to collect 20% and remit payments to the Clerk until the fee is paid in full

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (describing the imminent-danger exception to §1915(g) and its application)