The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments shall be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Plaintiff has also filed a "Request for Status," in which he describes a series of orders he has recently received from the court in his various pending civil actions, and asking the court, among other things, why a new civil action has been opened against defendant Salinas. See Doc. No. 6.
On August 22, 2012, the magistrate judge presiding over Bontemps v. Salinas, 10-cv-2345 DAD, issued an order directing that plaintiff's second amended complaint be re-filed as a new, randomly assigned action. The new case number assigned was 12-cv-2185 GGH P. That is the instant action. The operative complaint is dated July 31, 2012, and describes an incident which took place on June 2, 2012, when plaintiff was allegedly searched outside the prison law library. Plaintiff is referred to the August 22, 2012 order for a fuller explanation of the court's reasoning for designating this dispute as a separate action.*fn1
As to plaintiff's other cases, the court advises plaintiff that:
(1) Case number 12-cv-2249 DAD, Bontemps v. Barnes, was initiated by plaintiff's complaint, dated August 26, 2012, which describes an incident at High Desert State Prison which took place on February 5, 2012, when plaintiff was allegedly searched outside the Dining Hall; and
(2) Case number 12-cv-2250 GGH, Bontemps v. Barnes, was initiated by complaint dated August 27, 2012, which describes an incident at the Program Office which took place on February 27, 2012.
Screening Requirements The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has ...