Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00911/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00911-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS D. HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAROYA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-911-MJS

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SHOW

CAUSE 

(ECF Nos. 15 & 16)

Plaintiff Carlos D. Hendon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 9, 2010, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to show cause why his motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) based on his litigation history. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff

failed to respond. On July 29, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis because Plaintiff’s Complaint did not allege facts showing that he faced an

ongoing risk of serious physical injury. (ECF No. 14.) 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Request to Show Cause [ECF No. 15] and Motion

to Show Cause [ECF No. 16] asking for additional time to respond to the Court’s June 9

Order. Plaintiff claims that he was temporarily transferred to another prison facility and

therefore did not receive the Court’s June 9, 2010 Order. He argues that he can show that

he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury and, therefore, should be allowed to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

To meet the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a party’s complaint

Case 1:09-cv-00911-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/24/10 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-

must contain facts showing that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical harm

that is ongoing. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007). As noted in

the Court’s July 29 Order, Plaintiff’s current Complaint does not contain facts showing that

he is subject to an ongoing harm. (ECF No. 14 at 2.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint once as a matter of right and without leave of the

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Thus, Plaintiff is free to file an amended complaint that

sets forth facts showing that he meets the imminent danger exception. 

Because Plaintiff must amend his complaint in order to meet the imminent danger

exception and Plaintiff is free to do so at any time without leave of the Court, it would be

futile to grant Plaintiff additional time to show cause regarding these issues. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s Request to Show Cause [ECF No. 15] and Motion to Show Cause [ECF No. 16]

are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00911-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2