Thomas Joseph Melger v. Sacramento Police Department, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 THOMAS JOSEPH MELGER, No. 2:25-cv-02566 SCR P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

15 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action or sought leave to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). In an order dated October 6, 2025, the undersigned explained 22 that although plaintiff did not request to proceed IFP, as a three-strikes litigant he was “precluded 23 from proceeding without payment of the filing fee unless he is ‘under imminent danger of serious 24 physical injury.’” ECF No. 5 at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Because the complaint’s 25 allegations that prison officials entered plaintiff’s person via electromagnetic forces were 26 fantastical on their face, the undersigned concluded plaintiff had not put forth a plausible showing 27 of imminent harm and ordered…