Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00500-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAUL WINFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Z. HAGHBIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0500 KJN P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). By an order filed March 15, 2016, the court found that plaintiff had sustained three 

strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and ordered him to pay the filing fee in full within twenty-one 

days. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. On April 22, 2016, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within fourteen 

days, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice. 

 On May 5, 2016, plaintiff wrote a letter stating that he has “to go forma pauperis because 

[he] can’t afford the filing fee.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Plaintiff adds that his “life is in danger of the 

ones I am suing.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) However, as set forth in the March 15, 2016 order, 

defendants are employed at California State Prison, Sacramento, and at the time plaintiff filed the 

instant complaint, he was housed at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. (ECF No. 5 at 

2:24-25.) Plaintiff fails to explain how Dr. Z. Haghbin or Dr. J. Haque posed an imminent danger 

Case 2:16-cv-00500-KJN Document 9 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

of serious physical injury at the time he filed the instant complaint since he was transferred to the 

California Medical Facility before he filed the instant action. (See also ECF No. 5 at 2:11-22.) 

 The court finds that plaintiff has failed to show good cause why this action should not be 

dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 

prejudice. 

Dated: May 9, 2016 

/cw/winf0500.fsc 

Case 2:16-cv-00500-KJN Document 9 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2