United States District Court, E.D. California
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks
relief pursuant to 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). Plaintiff has requested leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
However, review of court records reveals that on at least six
occasions lawsuits filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed
on the grounds that they were frivolous or malicious or
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:
Court takes judicial notice of case numbers Blackman v.
Hartwell, No. 1:99-cv-05822 REC HGB (E.D. Cal.)
(dismissed 03/12/2001 for failure to state a claim);
Blackman v. Medina No. 3:05-cv-05390 SI (N.D. Cal.)
(dismissed 03/13/2006 for failure to state a claim);
Blackman v. Variz, No. 3:06-cv-06398 SI (N.D. Cal.)
(dismissed 12/18/2006 for failure to state a claim); and
Blackman v. Taxdahl, No. 1:04-cv-06389 AWI DLB (E.D.
Cal.) (dismissed 05/18/2007 for failure to state a claim);
Blackman v. Mantel, No. 3:07-cv-02609 SI (N.D. Cal.)
(dismissed 9/5/2007 for failure to state a claim); and
Blackman v. Evans, No. 1:06-cv-00081-GSA (E.D. Cal.)
(dismissed 2/3/2009 for failure to state a claim).
is therefore precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in
this action unless plaintiff is “under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's amended
complaint, and plaintiff has not alleged any facts which
suggest that he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. Rather, plaintiff argues certain defendants are
“obstructing justice” by interfering with his
ability to exhaust his administrative remedies to “stop
plaintiff from appearing in court for a court hearing on
criminal charges filed against
plaintiff.” (ECF No. 6 at 5.) Such allegations do not
plausibly suggest he faced imminent danger of serious
physical injury at the time he filed the complaint.
plaintiff must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to
proceed with this action.
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
plaintiff shall submit, within twenty-one days from the date
of this order, the appropriate filing fee. Plaintiffs failure
to comply with this order will result in a recommendation
that this action be dismissed.
 The Due Process Clause protects
plaintiff against the deprivation of liberty without the
procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law.
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005).
However, plaintiff has no stand-alone due process rights
related to the administrative grievance process. Ramirez
v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann
v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). A prison
official's denial of a grievance does not itself violate
the constitution. Evans v. Skolnik, 637 Fed.Appx.
285, 288 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. dism'd, 136
S.Ct. 2390 (2016). Thus, the denial, rejection, or
cancellation of a grievance does not constitute a due process
violation. See, e.g., Wright v. Shannon,
2010 WL 445203, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010)
(plaintiff's allegations that prison officials denied or
ignored his inmate appeals failed to state a cognizable claim
under the First Amendment); Towner v. Knowles, 2009
WL 4281999 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009) (plaintiff's
allegations that prison officials screened out his inmate
appeals without any basis failed to indicate a deprivation of
federal rights); Williams v. Cate, 2009 WL 3789597,
at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (“Plaintiff has no
protected liberty interest in the vindication of his
 The Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o action shall
be brought with respect to prison conditions under section
1983 . . ., or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined
in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “[T]he
PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits
about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances
or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive
force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle,
534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Because the PLRA governs suits
about prison conditions, plaintiff is not required to exhaust
administrative remedies in connection with filings in any
criminal case. If plaintiff is attempting to obtain habeas
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must exhaust state
court remedies prior to filing a federal petition for writ of
habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Such a petitioner
satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the ...