Davis v. City Of Fresno et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiff's IFP status should not be revoked signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/7/2010. Show Cause Response due by 7/12/2010. (Lundstrom, T)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). This action proceeds on the original complaint filed on May 26, 2009. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Salinas Valley State Prison, brings this civil rights action against various correctional officials, a Deputy Attorney General, and the City of Fresno. Plaintiff also names judicial officers of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Fresno. Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to a "criminal corruption conspiracy" for eleven years. Plaintiff makes vague allegations regarding his underlying criminal conviction (an illegal confession), as well as allegations regarding the dismissal of a civil suit. 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 1 v. CITY OF FRESNO, et al., (Doc. 1) Defendants. RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS BRYAN DAVIS, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00919-MJS- PC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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." This plaintiff has, on three prior occasions, brought civil actions challenging the conditions of his confinement. Davis v. Jordin, 1:07 cv 00302 LJO DLB PC (East. Dist. Cal., March 13, 2009)(dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted); Davis v City of San Diego, 08-1456 H (LSP)(So. Dist. Cal., September 10, 2008)(dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted); Davis v. Garcia, 07-0140 BEN (POR)(So. Dist. Cal., August 10, 2007)(dismissed as frivolous). Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless he alleges facts that he is in imminent danger of serious injury. There are no such facts alleged in this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, within thirty days of the date of service of this order, why his in forma pauperis status should not be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and plaintiff be directed to pay the $350 filing fee in full. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in dismissal of this action for plaintiff's failure to obey a court order pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ci4d6 June 7, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael J. Seng

2