IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 27, 2005
IN RE: ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING ACTIONS
Plaintiff Antonio Luis Williams is a prisoner of the State of California who is incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison. He has filed the three civil rights actions captioned above, each of which seeks identical relief and names this Court as the sole Defendant. In each action he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and these actions are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which was enacted on April 26, 1996, provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment under the in forma pauperis provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915:
[I]f the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In an Order dated December 22, 2004, this Court found that Plaintiff generally is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court under the provisions of § 1915(g). Plaintiff has filed the present three actions in which he alleges that the "imminent harm" exception to § 1915(g) should be applied because he is seeking to compel prison officials to provide him with treatment for a dislocated shoulder from which he has been suffering since prison officials used force against him at High Desert State Prison in 2002. Plaintiff has raised this claim in other actions he has filed in this Court, but it has never proceeded to review on the merits. Nor can it in its present posture.
A plaintiff is not required to plead his evidence "or specific factual details not ascertainable in advance of discovery." Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987). But a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under § 1983 if the allegations are mere conclusions. See Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1976); Fisher v. Flynn, 598 F.2d 663, 665 (1st Cir. 1979). A complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant which violated the plaintiff's rights fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982). If Plaintiff maintains that he is in need of immediate medical care and is unable to pay the filing fee, he may seek leave to proceed with this claim under § 1915(g) PROVIDED that he files a civil rights complaint which asserts ONLY this claim and which names as Defendants those individuals at Pelican Bay State Prison who are responsible for denying him medical care and/or who can provide him with relief. If Plaintiff continues to make conclusory allegations about the care to which he maintains he is entitled and continues to name the Court, who is not responsible for Plaintiff's medical care, as a Defendant, his actions will be dismissed.
The present complaints are duplicative of past actions filed by Plaintiff and do not allege facts which fall within the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception to § 1915(g). Accordingly, they will be dismissed. Moreover, because the claims raised are duplicative of claims raised and dismissed in prior actions and are otherwise without legal merit, the Court finds that it would be futile to grant Plaintiff leave to amend. Accordingly, these actions are DISMISSED without prejudice under § 1915(g).
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and terminate all pending motions in these actions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to the dismissal Order signed today, these actions are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.