(PC) Van Huisen v. Rosenburg, 2:24-cv-00055

Gregory Scott Van Husien, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint and a first amended complaint against federal drug enforcement officials.
Van Husien also submitted two applications to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), seeking to waive court filing fees due to indigency.
The court identified Van Husien as a "Three-Striker" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), meaning he has previously filed at least three cases dismissed for failure to state a claim.
A "Three-Striker" may only proceed IFP if they are under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.
The court reviewed both the initial and amended complaints for any allegation of imminent danger and found none.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis under §1915(g)	Van Husien is entitled to IFP status	Van Husien is a Three-Striker	Plaintiff denied IFP; must pay filing fee
Imminent danger exception to three-strikes rule	Plaintiff faces, or faced, imminent danger	No imminent danger alleged	No imminent danger found; exception not met
Sufficiency of the complaint's allegations	Claims against DEA officials are valid	Claims are unclear/vague	Allegations are unclear, not sufficient
Effect of prior case dismissals under §1915(g)	Prior cases shouldn’t count as strikes	Prior cases dismissed for failing to state a claim	Court recognizes prior dismissals as strikes as required

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (Supreme Court ruled any dismissal for failure to state a claim, with or without prejudice, counts as a strike under § 1915(g))
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. analyzed when to assess imminent danger under § 1915(g))
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. discussed requirements and effect of failing to object to magistrate judge's recommendation)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. held that failing to object may waive rights to appeal)