Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Hummbard

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 17, 2010

RONNIE O. BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUSAN HUMMBARD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER RE: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Document # 27

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at North Kern State Prison, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officials employed by the CDCR at North Kern State Prison. Plaintiff's complaint sets forth allegations that defendants denied his request for a housing accommodation.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that "[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in a facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the ground 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 injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

This plaintiff has, on 3 prior occasions, brought civil actions challenging the conditions of his confinement. All three action were dismissed as frivolous, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Brown v. Schwarzenegger, 2:05 cv 00955 MDE DAD P; Brown v. Foat, 2:07 cv 00245 FCD KJM P; Brown v. Adult Parole Operations , 5:08 cv 00011 (JWJ), (Cent. Dist. Cal.). Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless he alleges facts indicating that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. There are no such facts alleged in this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why his request to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. Plaintiff failed to do so and on January 14, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that Plaintiff be directed to submit the $350 filing fee in full. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73-305, this court has 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 proper analysis.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January 14, 2010, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant o 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3. Plaintiff is directed to submit the $350 filing in full within thirty days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100217

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.