(PC) Hammler v. Dignity Health, 1:20-cv-01778

Pro se plaintiff Allen Hammler, a California state prisoner at CSP–Corcoran, filed a 51‑page § 1983 complaint on December 17, 2020 alleging multiple claims (First Amendment free speech and retaliation, Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, negligence, assault, slander, breach of the peace, IIED, and constitutional policy/custom claims) arising from incidents between 2019–2020 involving correctional and medical staff.
Plaintiff initially did not pay the filing fee or file an IFP application; the court ordered compliance and Hammler later filed an IFP motion.
The magistrate judge found Hammler has at least three prior dismissals that qualify as § 1915(g) “strikes” based on prior federal cases and databases, making him a three‑striker before filing this action.
The magistrate determined Hammler failed to plausibly allege he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing (his allegations were largely verbal threats, subjective fears, and one minor injury to his fingers).
Alternatively, the magistrate found Hammler had sufficient funds in his inmate trust account (about $825 and earlier $2,600 in economic impact payments) to prepay the $402 filing fee and therefore denied IFP on financial grounds.
Recommendation: deny Hammler’s IFP motion under § 1915(g) and dismiss the case without prejudice unless he pays the filing fee; 14‑day objection period to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1915(g) bars Hammler from proceeding IFP	Hammler seeks IFP to proceed with his § 1983 action	Opposing position: Hammler is a three‑striker and thus cannot proceed IFP absent imminent danger	Court: Hammler has ≥3 qualifying strikes; § 1915(g) bars IFP
Whether imminent‑danger exception applies to overcome § 1915(g)	Hammler asserts threats/ongoing danger from officers (recounting prior incidents)	Opposing position: Allegations are speculative, verbal, or non‑physical and not plausibly imminent	Court: Imminent‑danger exception not met; allegations too speculative/vague
Whether Hammler is indigent such that IFP is appropriate	Hammler sought to proceed as indigent	Opposing position: Hammler had ~$825 (and received CARES/ stimulus payments) and can prepay the $402 filing fee	Court: Alternatively denies IFP on financial grounds; directs prepayment or dismissal

Lomax v. Ortiz‑Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (Sup. Ct. 2020) (§ 1915(g) three‑strikes rule and what counts as a dismissal for purposes of strikes)
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (imminent danger exception standard under § 1915(g))
Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (PLRA's fee provisions and effect on repeat prisoner litigants)
Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (liberal construction of allegations for imminent danger analysis)
Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (how to determine whether a dismissal counts as a strike)
Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (filing fee should not consume a prisoner’s last dollar)