Chappell v. Gerber et al

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE; ORDER re Motion 10 , signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 5/16/13. Show Cause Response Deadline: 6/21/2013; Motion 10 DENIED. (Verduzco, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01767-RRB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
and
ORDER RE MOTION AT DOCKET 10

GERBER, et al.,
Defendants.

Rex Chappell, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Chappell also filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.1 Chappell is currently in the custody of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), incarcerated at the
California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-C”). This action arises out of incidents that occurred
while Chappell was incarcerated at the California Correctional Institute, Tehachapi (“CCI”).2

1

Dkt. 10.

In addition to C/O Gerber, Chappell has named as defendants C/O R.
Morales; Sgt. B. Werdetz; Capt. P. Matzen; C/O Wartz; Lt. T. Harris; Warden (A) K.
Holland; Dr. M. Vu; Dr. Tate; Dr. S. Shiesha; and A. Joaquin, CMO.
2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Chappell v. Gerber, 1:12-cv-01767-RRB - 1

I.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
This Court granted Chappell leave to proceed in forma pauperis.3 Further review of

the file indicates that the Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
improvidently entered. The Application to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete: it
did not include the required certification of the amounts held for the benefit of Chappell by
CDCR.4
Perhaps more importantly, however, attached to the Complaint is a copy of a letter
written by Chappell to K. Holland, Warden (A), of CCI. In that letter, Chappell states: “The
reason I am here and not Pelican Bay SHU or Corcoran SHU, is because I won $255,000
from Pelican supposed professionals.’ Then turned around and settle [sic] for $10,000, then
$86,500. Then $30,000 at Corcoran, then $23,000 settlement.”5 Accordingly, it appears that
Chappell has the financial ability to pay the filing fee in full.6
II.

MOTION FOR TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
In his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Chappel

seeks relief against the Defendants. Because he has been transferred from CCI to CSP-C,

3

Dkt. 9.

4

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

5

Dkt. 1 at 58 (internal quotation marks omitted).

6

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (“allegation of poverty is untrue”).

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Chappell v. Gerber, 1:12-cv-01767-RRB - 2

Chappell’s request for injunctive relief against the staff and medical personnel at CCI has
been rendered moot.
III.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1.

On or before June 21, 2013, Plaintiff must show cause why the Order granting

him leave to proceed in forma pauperis should not be vacated; and
2.

The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction at

Docket 10 is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2013.
S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Chappell v. Gerber, 1:12-cv-01767-RRB - 3