United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A. TSUCHIDA CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
James Anthony Williams, a Washington State prisoner who is
currently confined at the Monroe Correctional Complex (MCC),
has submitted to this court for filing an application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a
proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Dkt. 1. The Court,
having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, his IFP
application, and other relevant court records, recommends
that plaintiff's IFP application should be denied as
plaintiff is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from
proceeding with this action without prepayment of the filing
alleges that defendants, who are various Washington
Department of Corrections and MCC officials, are violating
his 8th Amendment rights by either forcing or allowing him to
live in cells contaminated with feces and by illegally
holding him in solitary confinement. Complaint at 4, 18. He
alleges that his long-term placement in solitary confinement
has caused him to develop “SHU syndrome” and that
this syndrome causes him to smear his cell walls with feces
and place feces in the air conditioning units in his cells.
Id. at 5. He alleges that he has been doing this for
the last four months, that this is not a volitional act, and
that he would stop if he were released from solitary
confinement. Id. He alleges that although he has not
yet suffered physical injury from being placed in
contaminated cells, he is in imminent danger of a potentially
crippling or deadly injury in light of a past infection he
has suffered and infectious disease incidents at local
hospitals. Id. He seeks injunctive and monetary
relief. Id. at 20.
§ 1915(g), a prisoner who brings three or more civil
actions or appeals which are dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim may not bring any other civil action
or appeal in forma pauperis “unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A review of the
Court's records reflects that at least three of the cases
plaintiff has filed while incarcerated were dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim:
• Williams v. Portine, No. C11-1214-JCC (W.D.
• Williams v. Neely, Case. No. C15-489-BJR
• Williams v. Collins, No. C15-735-MJP (W.D.
court and the Eastern District of Washington have previously
determined that these and other cases are strikes for
purposes of § 1915(g) and denied plaintiff IFP status as
a three-strikes litigant:
• Williams v. Sinclair, No. C19-5185-RBL (W.D.
• Williams v. Sinclair, No. C19-345-JCC (W.D.
• Williams v. Holbrook, No. C16-5068-SAB (E.D.
plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes, he may not
proceed with this action without prepayment of the full
filing fee unless he shows that he was “under imminent
danger of serious physical injury” at the time he
signed his civil rights complaint. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). The imminent danger exception requires a
prisoner to allege a danger which is “ready to take
place or ‘hanging threateningly over one's
head.'” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007).
alleges that he is in imminent danger of a crippling or
deadly injury from exposure to feces. Complaint at 5. He
alleges that prison staff pressure-wash his cell when he
spreads feces on the walls, but they do not remove feces from
inside the air conditioning vents. Complaint at 8-10.
However, he states that he has been putting feces in the air
conditioning vents in his cells for four months but has not
yet suffered physical injury or illness due to exposure to
feces. Id. at 5. Plaintiff states that he has
suffered an infection in the past and refers to
Legionnaires' disease and mold infections-both unrelated
to fecal exposure-at local hospitals. Id. But his
past infection and unrelated infectious diseases at other
institutions do not demonstrate that he is in imminent ...