Taylor v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 4

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and Dismissing Action, Without Prejudice to Refiling With Submission of $350.00 Filing Fee in Full, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/11/12. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
KIRELL TAYLOR,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01990-AWI-BAM PC

7
Plaintiff,

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

8
v.
9
10

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

11

(ECF Nos. 1 and 2)
Defendants.

12

/

13
Plaintiff Kirell Taylor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
14
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 6, 2012. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma
15
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
16
Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under
17
this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
18
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds
19
that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
20
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Plaintiff is subject to section 1915(g)
21
and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is, at the time the complaint is filed,
22

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.1

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also goes by the name of Kirell Francis Bettis and Sadeeq Abdul Al-Haqq. The Court takes
judicial notice of case numbers 2:02-cv-05071-UA-CT (C.D. Cal.) Taylor v. United States of America (dismissed on
8/12/02 as frivolous); 3:05-cv-01147-JSW (N.D. Cal.) Bettis v. W alsh (dismissed on 5/18/05 for failure to state a
claim); 2:09-cv-00788-UA-CT (C.D. Cal.) Bettis v. Tillie-Moore (dismissed on 2/11/09 as frivolous); 2:09-cv01544-UA-CT (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 4/13/09 as frivolous); 1:09-cv-00949-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal.) Bettis-Taylor
v. Twentieth Century Fox (dismissed on 7/2/09 for failure to state a claim); 1:08-cv-1561-AW I-GSA (E.D. Cal.)
Taylor v. Blackstone (dismissed on 9/11/09 for failure to state a claim); 2:10-cv-00682-UA-DUTY (C.D. Cal.)
Bettis v. Clinton (dismissed 3/1/10 for failure to state a claim); and 1:10-cv-01892-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.) Taylor v.
U.S. Department of State (dismissed on 11/3/10 for failure to state a claim).

1

1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Plaintiff does not meet the

2

imminent danger exception.2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Because

3

Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting a finding that he is under imminent danger of serious physical

4

injury, Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.

5
6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action is denied;

8

2.

All pending motions are terminated; and

9

3.

This action is dismissed, without prejudice to refiling with the submission of the

10

$350.00 filing fee in full.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
0m8i78

December 11, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2

Plaintiff brings this suit for violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and alleges retaliation.
Plaintiff’s claims involve his mail, a publication that he wishes to market, and digital storefronts he wishes to use to
distribute his manuscript. In an attempt to establish imminent danger Plaintiff states that he had a mild heart attack
on April 17, 2011, and was not given adequate medication until days later. (Compl. 27, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff
alleges that he suffers from “severe dangerous panic attacks, extreme abnormal hypertension if not treated by high
blood pressure medication, daily anxiety and back spasms from lack of attending the recreational yard throughout the
years in an effort to prevent defendants from intentionally destroying plaintiff’s various designs of startup
corporations and inventions, among other things.” (Id. at 28.) Plaintiff claims that arguing with staff is detrimental
to his physical health. (Id.) Neither the lack of medical treatment in 2011, or Plaintiff’s speculation that he might
suffer a heart attack because of his health risks are sufficient to allege that Plaintiff was in imminent danger at the
time that he filed the complaint in this action.

2