Matthews II v. California et al

1
25cv2012-DMS (AHG)
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II,
CDCR #BZ-9335,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25cv2012-DMS (AHG)
ORDER:
(1) CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S
LETTER AS A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION,
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, and
(3) EXTENDING TIME TO PAY
FILING FEE
On August 4, 2025, Ivan Lee Matthews, II, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed
a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the
civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing, but instead submitted
a copy of his California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) inmate
trust account statement which the Court treated as a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). ECF No. 2.
On September 17, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion after finding he was
prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP in federal court due to having
accumulated “three strikes,” that is, three prior civil cases filed as a prisoner which were
Case 3:25-cv-02012-DMS-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
25cv2012-DMS (AHG)
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
dismissed “on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.” ECF No. 3 at 2, quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court noted that
an exception applies where “the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury,” but found the Complaint contained no such allegations. Id. at 4. The case was
dismissed for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and Plaintiff was instructed that
unless he paid the full civil filing fee on or before November 3, 2025, the Court would
enter a final judgment of dismissal. Id.
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a letter asking for clarification as to how
the Court could have denied his IFP motion because he did not submit an IFP motion in
this case, but that in any case he included the filing fee in his request for relief and should
therefore only have to pay if at all at the conclusion of the case. ECF No. 4 at 3. He also
argues that he is entitled to proceed IFP despite having three strikes because he can satisfy
the imminent danger exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) based on allegations in the
Complaint that the medication prescribed by the CDCR, Riboflavin and Thiamine, can
cause hair loss and Beriberi, and because the CDCR refuses to properly treat his neck injury
for the last four months. Id. at 2.
The Court will construe Plaintiff’s letter as a Motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s September 17, 2025, Order denying IFP and dismissing the Complaint.
As to Plaintiff’s confusion regarding the IFP motion, as noted, the Court treated the
CDCR trust account statement he submitted along with his Complaint as a request to
proceed IFP and denied the motion. As to Plaintiff’s contention that he satisfies the
imminent danger exception to § 1915(g), in order to do so his pleading must contain a
“plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’
at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007), quoting
§ 1915(g). Imminent danger requires plausible allegations of harm “ready to take place,”
or “hanging threateningly over one’s head.” Id. at 1056. The exception “cannot be triggered
solely by complaints of past injury or generalized fears of possible future harm.”
Hernandez v. Williams, 2021 WL 1317376, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021).
Case 3:25-cv-02012-DMS-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
25cv2012-DMS (AHG)
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
The imminent danger of serious physical injury exception cannot be triggered
merely by Plaintiff’s reference to his past neck injury or a fear that his medication may
cause hair loss or Beriberi. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1053, 1057; see also Jones v. Messler,
2023 WL 362503, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023) (finding no imminent danger where
prisoner’s allegations and the medical records he attached to his Complaint “show no more
than that he sufferes from various chronic health conditions and that he disagrees with the
course of treatment for those conditions.”); Hernandez, 2021 WL 1317376, at *2
(“[A]llegations of chronic pain and claims of inadequate medical care, like those Plaintiff
makes here, do not meet § 1915(g)’s imminent danger exception.”), citing Balzarini v.
Lewis, 2015 WL 2345464, *8 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2015) (finding prisoner’s disagreement
with medical personnel about the course of his treatment and adequacy of pain medication
insufficient to establish imminent danger), Thomas v. Ellis, 2015 WL 859071, *3 (N.D.
Cal. Feb. 26, 2015) (finding allegations of prisoner complaining of acute chronic pain but
disagreeing with the type of medication prescribed insufficient to show imminent danger
of serious physical injury), and Stephens v. Castro, 2006 WL 1530265, *1 (E.D. Cal. May
31, 2006) (disagreement with prison personnel about course of treatment does not establish
imminent danger of serious physical injury under § 1915(g)).
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions
for reconsideration, S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) permits motions for reconsideration
“[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been
made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part, . . . .” S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i).
The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and
circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior
application.” Id. Plaintiff has made no such showing.
A motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment
under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days of entry of the order challenged, as here;
otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order. See Am.
Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001).
Case 3:25-cv-02012-DMS-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
25cv2012-DMS (AHG)
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
A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly discovered evidence,
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Wood v.
Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff has
not made a showing sufficient to satisfy Rule 59(e).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court CONSTRUES Plaintiff’s November 24, 2025, letter [ECF No. 4] as a
Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 17, 2025, Order denying IFP and
Dismissing the Complaint and DENIES the motion. The Court EXTENDS the time to pay
the filing fee in this case for thirty (30) days after the date this Order is filed. Unless
Plaintiff timely pays the $405 civil filing fee the Court will enter a final judgment of
dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02012-DMS-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4