Blackman v. Rocha, et al.

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/8/2010 denying 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSING CASE without prejudice to refiling with submission of $350.00 filing fee in full. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Blackman v. Rocha, et al. Doc. 4 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 1 The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers 1:99-cv-05822-REC-HGB PC Blackman v. Hartwell ( E .D . Cal.) (dismissed 03/12/2001 for failure to state a claim); 3:05-cv-05390-SI Blackman v. Medina (N.D. Cal.) ( d is m is s e d 03/13/2006 for failure to state a claim); 3:06-cv-06398-SI Blackman v. Variz (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed 1 2 /1 8 /2 0 0 6 for failure to state a claim); and 1:04-cv-06389-AW I -N E W (DLB) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 05/18/2007 for UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TONY BLACKMAN, Plaintiff, v. D. ROCHA, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01824-LJO-SMS PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH SUBMISSION OF $350.00 FILING FEE IN FULL (Docs. 1 and 2) / Plaintiff Tony Blackman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 4, 2010. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 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 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action is denied; and This action is dismissed, without prejudice to refiling with the submission of the $350.00 filing fee in full. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 October 8, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE fa ilu r e to state a claim). Plaintiff's vague allegations concern discrimination, retaliation, issues with prison's administrative g r ie v a n c e process, and Plaintiff's "false imprisonment" in state prison. Doc. 1, court record pp. 3-6. The complaint is devoid of any showing that Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id. 2 2

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?