(PC) Hickman v. Elizondo

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZONDO,
Defendant.
No. 2:26-cv-2446-DC-CSK (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 7)
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 13, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) The
magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied
because plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Id.) The magistrate
judge found that plaintiff’s claim that defendant Elizondo violated copyright laws every time he
used plaintiff’s name without plaintiff’s consent did not meet the imminent danger exception to
§ 1915(g). (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No.
8. In his objections, plaintiff claims that he meets the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)
Case 2:26-cv-02446-DC-CSK Document 9 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
because the California Health Care Facility, where plaintiff is incarcerated, is near a landfill.
(ECF No. 8 at 1.) Plaintiff claims that the landfill poses a threat to the health of those who live
around the landfill. (Id. at 1-2.) “The imminent danger exception to [§ 1915(g)] requires a nexus
between the alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the complaint.” Ray v.
Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). The imminent danger alleged in plaintiff’s objections is
unrelated to the violations of law alleged in the complaint. For this reason, this Court finds that
plaintiff’s objections do not demonstrate that plaintiff meets the imminent danger exception to
§ 1915(g). Thus, Plaintiff’s objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings
and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court
finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7) are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the filing fee ($405.00) prior to proceeding any further with
this action in light of his status as a three-strikes litigant within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Such payment must be made within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order;
4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this
action be dismissed; and
5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-02446-DC-CSK Document 9 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2