Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Wilson v. California State Prison Corcoran

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 31, 2018

DAVID W. WILSON, Plaintiff,



         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed on March 28, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not prepaid the filing fee as required by Local Rule 121(c). Accompanying his complaint was a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be denied.

         I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section 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.”

         A. Actions Dismissed for Failure to State Claim

         Plaintiff has brought four actions that were dismissed for failing to state a claim. See Wilson v. Tilton, No. 2:06-cv-01031-LKK-PAN (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2006); Wilson v. Schwartz, No. 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006); Wilson v. Dovey, No. 2:06-cv-01032-FCD-EFB (E.D. Cal. March 8, 2007); Wilson v. Veal, No. 2:06-cv-00067-FCD-KJM (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2007).

         All of Plaintiff's actions noted above were dismissed before March 28, 2018, when Plaintiff filed the present action. Thus, Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless at the time the complaint was filed, he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

         B. Imminent Danger Exception

         The imminent danger exception applies if “the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit interprets “imminent danger” to mean “ongoing danger, ” meaning the prisoner must allege that prison officials have continued with a practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past. Id. at 1056-57.

         A prisoner seeking to invoke the imminent danger exception in § 1915(g) must make specific, credible allegations of imminent danger of serious physical harm. McNeil v. U.S., 2006 WL 581081 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 8, 2006) (citing Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2001), and White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir. 1998)). Vague, speculative, and non-specific allegations are insufficient. See Pauline v. Mishner, 2009 WL 1505672 (D. Haw. May 28, 2009) (plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations of possible future harm to himself or others are insufficient to trigger the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to dismissal under § 1915(g)); Cooper v. Bush, 2006 WL 2054090 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2006) (plaintiff's allegations that he will commit suicide, or that he has already attempted suicide and will do so again, are insufficient to show imminent danger); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (“[p]laintiffs vague allegation of a conspiracy among the defendants to beat, assault, injure, harass and retaliate against him are not enough. These allegations are insufficient and lack the specificity necessary to show an imminent threat of serious physical injury.”).

         Here, Plaintiffs complaint fails to reflect that Plaintiff is at imminent risk of suffering “serious physical injury.”

         Although the complaint is largely incomprehensible and its allegations difficult to decipher, it alleges the following multitude of alleged constitutional violations: Plaintiff was transferred in retaliation for engaging in a protected act, and the transfer did not ensure compliance with his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); Defendants have deprived him of certain items, such as a fan and special mattress, he considers medical necessities; he has been seen by a nurse practitioner, while being denied visits by a medical doctor; he seeks but has been denied special transport accommodations, an air mattress with an electric fan, a ban on further video doctor's visits, the return of his toenail clippers, special accommodations on searches conducted when he is out of his cell, a special therapeutic diet, access to the library five days a week, a requirement that all kitchen personnel who handle food wear caps and aprons, and enactment of a long list of procedural and physical changes to the prison. (ECF No. 1 at 20-24.)

         The Court can identify no allegations in the foregoing or otherwise that indicate Plaintiff is exposed to imminent physical danger from which he needs the Court's protection.

         II. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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