Ransom v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Clarification, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/3/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

CASE NO. 1:11-CV-00068-AWI-MJS PC

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

12
v.

13
14
15

(ECF No. 17)

SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16

/
17
18

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on January 13, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

21

§ 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

22

On March 9, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court denied Plaintiff the

23

right to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his action without prejudice to refiling at

24

the time he submitted the $350.00 filing fee. (Order, ECF No. 3.) The Court also found that

25

Plaintiff did not meet the imminent danger exception. (Id. at 1-2.)

26

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s ruling regarding his in forma

27

pauperis status. (Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 5.) That Motion was denied. (Order

28

Denying, ECF No. 6.)
-1-

1

Plaintiff then appealed the Court’s in forma pauperis ruling. (Notice of Appeal, ECF

2

No. 7.) The Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiff could meet the imminent danger exception

3

established in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), vacated the District Court’s Order denying leave to

4

proceed in forma pauperis, and remanded the case to the District Court. (U.S.C.A. Order,

5

ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Return of his Complaint. (Motion for Complaint, ECF No.

6
7

13.)

8

On December 2, 2011, the Court issued an Order authorizing Plaintiff to proceed

9

in forma pauperis, granted his motion for return of the Complaint and directed the Court

10

Clerk to return the Complaint to him. Plaintiff also was ordered to submit, within sixty (60)

11

days, a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period

12

immediately preceding filing of the Complaint. (Order Granting Motion, ECF No. 16.)

13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of Case Status (Motion for

14

Clarification, ECF No. 17) wherein he seeks a copy of the original Complaint lodged with

15

the Court and an update on the status of his case.

16

II.

ANALYSIS

17

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

18

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

20

raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which

21

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

22

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion

23

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

24

determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

25

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

26

The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff’s Complaint only

27

after the Court has screened the Complaint and determined that it contains cognizable

28

claims for relief against the named Defendants.
-2-

1

The Court is aware of Plaintiff’s action and his Compliant is in line for screening.

2

However, the Court has a large number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it. It

3

and will screen Plaintiff’s Complaint in due course. Until such time as the Court has

4

screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, no further action is required.

5

Plaintiff may make arrangements with the Court Clerk to obtain a copy of his

6

Complaint upon his submitting a money order covering the cost of copies at the Court’s

7

scheduled charge of $0.50 per page.

8

III

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification is GRANTED in

9
10

ORDER

the manner set out above.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:
ci4d6

April 3, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-