Bontemps v. Baker, et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 07/13/17 ordering this action is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of the filing fees. The clerk of the court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
BAKER, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. The court issued
an order to show cause on May 15, 2017, requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should
not be dismissed.
The court found it had previously determined plaintiff is barred from proceeding
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1985(g), and that it did not appear that plaintiff was
under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. Plaintiff has filed
a response to the order to show cause. In his response, plaintiff argues he is in imminent danger
of serious physical injury as the correctional officers at California State Prison - Sacramento
(CSP-Sac) continue to use excessive force against him. He claims this has been an on-going
problem, and because he continues to be housed at CSP-Sac, he continues to be in danger of
additional use of force against him. However, as set forth in the order to show cause, the use of
excessive force he alleged in his complaint consisted of placing handcuffs on him in an
unreasonable manner, causing pain in his wrists and marks on his skin. Plaintiff states he
continues to be at risk of additional use of force, but fails to elaborate as to any specific incidents
or any severe and/or dangerous use of force. The undersigned previously found incorrect
placement of handcuffs is not severe enough to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, much
less to show plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff offers nothing
more serious in his response to the order to show cause and the undersigned finds plaintiff has
not shown he has met the standard to proceed IFP.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
This action is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon pre-payment of
the filing fees; and
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
DATED: July 13, 2017
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?