Weaver v. Thao et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/16/17 ordering that plaintiff shall, within 14 daysafter service of this order, submit the full filing fee of $400.00. No extensions of time will begranted. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE WEAVER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1556 AC P

v.

ORDER

THAO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c).

20

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Review of court records1 reveals that plaintiff has been designated

22

a “three-strikes litigant” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See e.g. Weaver v. Attorney General, Case

23

No. 2:14-cv-01132 JAM DAD P, ECF Nos. 5 & 7. This designation reflects that three or more of

24

plaintiff’s prior federal lawsuits were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous,

25
1

26
27
28

This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See
United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631
F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts
that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned).
1

1
2

malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As a result, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless

3

he demonstrates that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he

4

filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th

5

Cir. 2007). The danger must be real and proximate, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th

6

Cir. 2003), and ongoing, Andrews, 493 F.3d at1056. Allegations that are overly speculative or

7

fanciful may be rejected. Id. at 1057 n.11. Absent a showing that plaintiff was under imminent

8

danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint, he may proceed in this action

9

only if he first pays the full filing fee ($400.00).

10

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison Sacramento (CSP-SAC). The

11

instant complaint, signed and submitted by plaintiff on July 23, 2017, names the following

12

defendants: CSP-SAC Correctional Officers Thao and Williams, Third Watch Sergeant (on 7-19-

13

17) and Third Watch Lieutenant (on 7-19-17). The complaint alleges that plaintiff should be on a

14

single cell status and that correctional officers “cannot take [his] property because of refuseing a

15

celly [sic].” ECF No. 1 at 3, 4. Plaintiff avers that he “faces a substantial risk of serious harm

16

and injury here which is imminent at the time of fileing [sic].” Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that

17

defendants “should be reprimanded” and he seeks $3 million compensatory damages and $2

18

million punitive damages. Id.

19

These allegations fail to demonstrate that plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious

20

physical injury when defendant Kendall made the alleged statement. Therefore, plaintiff must

21

submit the full filing fee in order to proceed with this action.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall, within fourteen (14) days

23

after service of this order, submit the full filing fee of $400.00. No extensions of time will be

24

granted. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

25

action be dismissed.

26

DATED: August 16, 2017

27
28
2