Ransom v. Ortiz, et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/2011 denying IFP Status and DISMISSING action without prejudice to refiling contemporaneous with submission of $350.00 filing fee in full. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
-MJS (PC) Ransom v. Ortiz, et al Doc. 5 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 the following cases: Ransom v. Doe, et al., 1:96-cv-8204-RAW L (CT) (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) on December 6, 1996); Ransom v. Chief W illiams, 96-cv-8203 MRP (C.D. Cal.) (Dismissed pursuant to Heck on December 10, 1996); and Ransom v. Sandoval, 3:01-cv-513-JM (JAH) (S.D. Cal.) (Dismissed for failure to state a claim on January 10, 2002). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BRYAN RANSOM, Plaintiff, v. D. ORTIZ, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-364-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH SUBMISSION OF $350.00 FILING FEE IN FULL / (ECF No. 1) On March 3, 2011, Plaintiff Bryan Ransom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 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 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds that Plaintiff does not meet the 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 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 is DENIED the right to proceed in forma pauperis; and This action is dismissed, without prejudice to refiling contemporaneous with the submission of the $350.00 filing fee in full. 3. All pending motions should be terminated and the Clerk shall close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 March 14, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a variety of unrelated claims that, even if the Court were to allow Plaintiff to proceed, would undoubtedly run afoul of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21. They range from an excessive force and retaliatory transfer claims based on events that occurred in 2001-02 to a deliberate indifference claim from 2007. None of these claims state facts showing that, as of early 2011, when this case was initiated, Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 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?