Cramer v. Wittman et al
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, Without Prejudice, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(G) and Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/29/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MATTHEW B. CRAMER,
10
11
12
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00451-LJO-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
1915(G) AND DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT
v.
BILL WITTMAN, et al.,
(Doc. 1)
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
16
Plaintiff Matthew B. Cramer, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 28, 2013.
17
Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner
18
bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
19
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
20
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
21
relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
22
The Court takes judicial notice of the following Eastern District of California cases: Cramer
23
v. Schwarzenegger, case number 1:08-cv-01310-GSA (dismissed Apr. 29, 2009, for failure to state
24
a claim; no appeal filed); Cramer v. Calif. Dep’t of Justice, 2:00-cv-02374-DFL-DAD (dismissed
25
Sept. 26, 2001, for failure to state a claim and frivolous; no appeal filed); and Cramer v. Ty Warner,
26
Inc., 2:00-mc-00099-FCD-GGH (dismissed Jul. 26, 2001, for failure to state a claim; no appeal
27
filed). Accordingly, prior to the date he filed this action, Plaintiff had at least three strikes under
28
section 1915(g), Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissals must be
1
1
final before they count as strikes), and he is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless, at
2
the time he filed suit, he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, Andrews v. Cervantes,
3
493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).
4
The Court has reviewed the complaint filed in this action and it does not involve imminent
5
danger of serious physical injury to Plaintiff. Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1055-56. Plaintiff’s claims arise
6
of the alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and relate to
7
medical care issues at Bob Wiley Detention Facility in Tulare, California. However, because
8
Plaintiff is not in imminent danger of serious physical injury, he is not entitled to proceed in forma
9
pauperis. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee if he wishes to litigate these claims.
10
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in
11
forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and this action is DISMISSED,
12
without prejudice to refiling accompanied by the $350.00 filing fee. The Clerk of the Court shall
13
enter judgment.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated:
March 29, 2013
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
B2e55c
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?