Johnson v. Lopez et al
ORDER Revoking Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); ORDER Vacating 7 Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER Vacating Order Directing CDCR to Collect Filing Fee Payments for this Action; ORDER Dismissing Action, without Prejudice to Refiling with Submission of $350.00 Filing Fee in Full; ORDER for Clerk to Close Case signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/14/2010. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
(PC) Johnson v. Lopez et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE 21 / 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Eric Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 16, 2010. (Doc. 1.) On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 6.) On July 9, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's application. (Doc. 7.) Section 1915(g) 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 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ERIC JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. RAUL LOPEZ, et al.,
1:10-cv-01087-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 7.) Defendants. ORDER VACATING ORDER DIRECTING CDCR TO COLLECT FILING FEE PAYMENTS FOR THIS ACTION (Doc. 7.) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH SUBMISSION OF $350.00 FILING FEE IN FULL
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
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." Plaintiff is subject to section 1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is, at the time the complaint is filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury.1 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds that Plaintiff does not meet the imminent danger exception.2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting a finding that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis in this action is REVOKED; The Court's order granting Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, entered on July 9, 2010, is VACATED; 3. The Court's order directing payment of the inmate filing fee by the CDCR, entered on July 9, 2010, is VACATED; 4. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice to refiling with the submission of the $350.00 filing fee in full; 5. 6. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case; and The Clerk is directed to SERVE a copy of this order on the Director of the CDCR, via the Court's electronic case filing system. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 December 14, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers 2:94-cv-01616-DFL-GGH PC Johnson v. State of C a lifo r n ia (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 07/26/1995 for failure to state a claim); 2:94-cv-01146-EJG-GGH PC Johnson v. B r is c o e , et al. (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 08/17/1995 for failure to state a claim). and 2:94-cv-01925-W B S -G G H PC J o h n s o n v. Bonaccorso,et al. (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 09/08/1995 for failure to state a claim). This action involves the claim that Plaintiff was arbitrarily imposed three separate SHU terms for the same r u le violation, in violation of the California Code of Regulations.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?