(PC)Cannavan v. Newsom et al

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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRICK A. CANNAVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 1:26-cv-06993 JLT HBK
ORDER DECLINING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING
PLANTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(Docs. 2, 8)
Patrick Cannavan seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he alleges
violations of his civil rights. (Docs. 1, 2.) The magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s litigation
history and found the following dismissals count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g):
1. Cannavan v. Newsom, et al., No. 1:26-cv-6034-KES-EPG (E.D.
Cal. Aug. 31, 2026)
2. Cannavan v. Newsom, et al., No. 1:26-cv-6035-KES-FJS (E.D.
Cal. Aug. 31, 2026)
3. Cannavan v. Newsom, et al., No. 1:26-cv-6046-KES-EPG (E.D.
Cal. Aug. 31, 2026)
4. Cannavan v. Newsom, et al., No. 1:26-cv-6048-KES-FJS (E.D.
Cal. Aug. 31, 2026)
5. Cannavan v. Newsom, et al., No. 1:26-cv-6051-KES-FJS (E.D.
Cal. Aug. 31, 2026)
(Doc. 8 at 3.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff did not satisfy “the imminent danger”
Case 1:26-cv-06993-JLT-HBK Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

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
exception” to Section 1915. (Id. at 4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that the
Court deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 4-5.)
As the magistrate judge observed, “[a] complaint that that merely repeats pending or
previously litigated claims may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious.” (Doc. 8 at 2, citing
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995).) In Cato, the Court addressed
whether a case could be dismissed as duplicative under a prior version of Section 1915 and
concluded that “[t]here was no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under §
1915(d) a complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.’” Cato, 70 F.3d
at 1105 n.2 (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).) However, the
Court did not hold that a dismissal as duplicative automatically qualifies as a strike. See id.
A dismissal qualifies as a strike when it is “dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The
Ninth Circuit has taken a narrow view of the statute and indicated that “[i]f a case was not
dismissed on one of the specific enumerated grounds, it does not count as a strike under §
1915(g).” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Harris v. Harris, 935 F.3d 670,
673 (9th Cir. 2019)). Importantly, that an action is “duplicative” is not one of the identified
reasons in Section 1915(g) for a dismissal to qualify as a strike. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Although a court may find a duplicative action is also frivolous or malicious, such a
finding was not made in the identified actions. As the magistrate judge indicated, the Findings
and Recommendations in the five actions identified above provided: “Duplicative lawsuits filed
by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or
malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” (See Doc. 8 at 4, quoting Case No. 1:26-cv-6034, Doc. 10
at 4.) However, the quoted provision comes from the “legal standards” set forth by the magistrate
judge, not the analysis of Plaintiff’s claims. In each action, the analysis was limited to a finding
that the action was “duplicative.” (See Case No. 1:26-cv-6034, Doc. 10 at 4-5; Case No. 1:26-cv-
6035, Doc. 10 at 4; Case No. 1:26-cv-6046, Doc. 9 at 4-5; Case No. 1:26-cv-6048, Doc. 10 at 4;
Case No. 1:26-cv-6051, Doc. 10 at 4.) Without additional findings— that each action was
frivolous or malicious—the identified dismissals do not qualify as strikes. See, e.g., Ramsey v.
Case 1:26-cv-06993-JLT-HBK Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

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
3
Lujan, 2025 WL 3273805, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2025) (observing that on appeal, the Ninth
Circuit found a dismissal “as duplicative” was “not explicitly on enumerated grounds”) (quoting
Ramsey v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corr. and Rehab., No. 23-2465 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023, ECF No. 16));
see also Washington v. Gilmore, 825 Fed. App’x 58, (3rd Cir. 2020) (“These dismissals do not
count as strikes because the District Court did not explicitly characterize the claims as malicious
or frivolous …, not because duplicative claims are not susceptible to dismissal on those
grounds”). Therefore, the Court declines to find the dismissals identified qualify as strikes under
Section 1915(g). As the dismissals do not qualify as strikes, Plaintiff may proceed in forma
pauperis in this action.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
1. The Findings and Recommendations dated September 17, 2026 (Doc. 8) are
DECLINED.
2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026_
Case 1:26-cv-06993-JLT-HBK Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3