Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND and DISCHARGING Order to Show Cause Regarding Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motions for Copies of Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/31/16. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-SKO (PC)

9
10

MICHAEL GONZALES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
PODSAKOFF, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND AND DISCHARGING
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
(Docs. 20-23)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR COPIES OF DOCUMENTS
(Docs. 7, 8, 18)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Michael Gonzales, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action

20

on June 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Complaint.

21

(Doc. 2.) This application was granted later that month even though Plaintiff had three strikes for

22

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because it appeared that Plaintiff’s allegations may suffice to show

23

imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Docs. 3, 5.)

24

Upon screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, it was determined that his allegations

25

which state cognizable claims fail to show an imminent danger of serious physical injury to be

26

excepted from the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, two orders issued on April

27

25, 2016. The first order screened the Complaint and required Plaintiff to either file a first

28

amended complaint, or to submit a notice indicating he was willing to proceed only on the claims
1

1

which were found to be cognizable and related for purposes of Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of

2

Civil Procedure.1 (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff’s cognizable and related claims were found to be

3

retaliation and interference with Plaintiff’s mail against Defendants A. Podsakoff and L.

4

Lawrence and an excessive force claim against Defendant A. Podsakoff for slamming Plaintiff’s

5

wrist in the food port on April 9, 2014. (Id.) Because neither of these claims amounted to an

6

imminent danger of serious injury, an order to show cause (OSC) issued requiring Plaintiff to

7

show why his in forma pauperis status should not be revoked. (Doc. 21.)
II. ANALYSIS and DISCUSSION

8
9

A.

10

As stated in the OSC, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. "In no

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff May Only Proceed In Forma Pauperis If He Is Able to Show That He
was in Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Injury When He Filed This Action

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff had three strikes before he filed this
action. (Doc. 21.) Thus to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, he must state allegations
which show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury and amount to a cognizable

18
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

Plaintiff filed two documents on May 25, 2016. The first document is Plaintiff’s notice

20
that he does not desire to file an amended complaint and is willing to proceed on the claims found
21
cognizable in the screening order. (Doc. 22.) If Plaintiff proceeds on the claims previously found
22
cognizable, his in forma pauperis status will be revoked and he will be required to pay the filing
23
fee in full. The second document Plaintiff filed on May 25, 2016, is his response to the OSC
24
25
26

which suggests that he may be able to state a cognizable claim showing he was in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury at the time he filed this action based on the tainting of his food
with “antipsychotic medication” which caused him to experience “akinesia and tartive

27
1

28

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory
authorities shall so indicate.

2

1

dyskinesia.” Since Plaintiff may be able to state cognizable claims which show that he was under

2

imminent danger of serious physical injury, he is granted opportunity to file a first amended

3

complaint. Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2015).

4

Thus, the OSC is discharged and Plaintiff is granted the option, in the next thirty days to

5

either: (1) file a notice of his desire to proceed on the claims in the Complaint that were

6

previously found cognizable (see Doc. 20) in which case his in forma pauperis status will be

7

revoked and this action will be dismissed without prejudice to his re-filing upon prepayment of

8

the full filing fee; or (2) file a First Amended Complaint, limited to the instances when his food

9

was tainted at California State Prison (“CSP-Cor”) in Corcoran, California, as well any related

10

claims which do not violate Rule 18. Plaintiff is provided a copy of the order screening his

11

Complaint (Doc. 20) and the OSC (Doc. 21) for applicable standards.

12
13

B.

Plaintiff’s Motions For Copies of Documents Are Granted

Plaintiff has filed several motions requesting copies of documents he has filed in this

14

action indicating that prison staff at CSP-Cor denied him copies for various reasons. (See Docs.

15

7, 8, 18.) Plaintiff has since been transferred to the California Correctional Institute (“CCI”) in

16

Tehachapi, California. Though litigants must generally pay for copies of documents, Plaintiff’s

17

requests will be granted gratis – on this one occasion. Plaintiff will hopefully no longer have

18

issues with obtaining copies of documents since he is no longer at CSP-Cor. Plaintiff is

19

cautioned, however, that such copies will not be provided in the future without remuneration.

20
21

III. ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERD that:

22

1. The Order to Show Cause that issued on April 25, 2016, is DISCHARGED;

23

2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must:

24

a. file a notice of his desire to proceed on the claims in the Complaint that were

25

previously found cognizable (see Doc. 20) which will result in revocation of his

26

in forma pauperis status and the dismissal of this action without prejudice to his

27

re-filing upon prepayment of the full filing fee;

28

b. file a First Amended Complaint, limited to the instances when his food was
3

1

tainted at CSP-Cor and any claims which do not violate Rule 18; or

2

c. if he no longer desires to pursue this action, he must file a notice of

3

voluntary dismissal;

4

3. Plaintiff’s motions for copies of his filings in this action, filed on August 31, 2015,

5

(Docs. 7, 8) and January 6, 2018, (Doc. 18) are GRANTED;

6

4. The Clerk’s Office is directed to forward copies of the Complaint (Doc. 1),

7

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 9), Plaintiff’s motion of

8

petition for injunctional court order and temporary restraining order (Doc. 17), the

9

order which screened the Complaint (Doc. 20), and the order to show cause why in

10

forma pauperis status should not be revoked (Doc. 21); and

11

5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action

12

for both failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.

13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16

Dated:

May 31, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

.