IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 8, 2013
WILLIE WEAVER, PLAINTIFF,
RON LLOYD CONNELLY, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 4, 2013, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed because plaintiff neither paid the filing nor requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 24, 2013, plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the January 4, 2013 findings and recommendations are vacated. As explained below, however, this action must be dismissed because plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee, nor demonstrated that he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.
A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis, if 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). On at least three prior occasions, plaintiff has brought actions while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See (1) Weaver v. California Corr. Inst., No. 1:06-cv-01429 OWW SMS P, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32826 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2007) (order dismissing action as frivolous and malicious); (2) Weaver v. CCI-Tehachapi, No. 1:04-cv-6079 LJO WMW P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2007) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim); and (3) Weaver v. Appeal Coordinator, No. 1:06-cv-0134 OWW DLB P, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61532 (E.D. Cal. Aug 28, 2006) (order dismissing action for failure to state a claim).
Further, it does not appear that plaintiff was under imminent threat of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007) (section 1915(g) imminent danger exception applies where complaint makes a "plausible" allegation that prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing). In the complaint, plaintiff seeks damages from a superior court judge defendant who allegedly received a motion by plaintiff to set aside a guilty verdict. Dckt. No. 1. Plaintiff's allegations do not demonstrate that he suffered from imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. Thus, the imminent danger exception does not apply.
Because plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis, this action must be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that;
1. The January 4, 2013 findings and recommendations (Dckt. No. 7) are vacated; and
2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dckt. No. 8) is denied.
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(g).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.