Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01165/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01165-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1165 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed June 28, 2005, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis was denied and plaintiff was ordered to submit the $250.00 filing fee for this action. In

response, plaintiff contends that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he

filed this suit.

As set forth in the court’s June 28, 2005 order, a prisoner may not bring a civil

action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 1915

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).

Case 2:05-cv-01165-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman,

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

The present action was filed on June 13, 2005. On more than three occasions

prior to that date, lawsuits filed by the plaintiff were dismissed on the grounds that they were

frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 See Order

filed June 21, 1999, in Campbell v. Butts, No. CIV F-98-6483 AWI SMS P (E.D. Cal.); Order

filed March 27, 2001, in Campbell v. Randalph, No. CIV F-99-5462 REC HGB P (E.D. Cal.);

Order filed May 23, 2005, in Campbell v. Turner, No. CIV S-05-0778 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal.);

and Order filed May 27, 2005, in Campbell v. Baughman, No. CIV S-05-0066 MCE DAD P

(E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff was incarcerated when he brought each of these actions.

In support of his contention that he was under imminent danger of serious

physical injury when he filed this action on June 13, 2005, plaintiff describes an incident that

occurred on April 26, 2005, involving two officers who are not defendants in this action. 

Plaintiff alleges that one of the officers, whom he does not name, is continuing to threaten him as

a result of the incident. He states that he “had this incident investigated” and told the

investigative employee about the threats, and that the investigative employee took statements

from everybody. Plaintiff contends that he filed this suit both because he believed the

investigative employee violated the time constraints and because he felt his safety was

threatened. Plaintiff provides a copy of the investigative employee’s report.

Plaintiff’s exhibit shows that only three statements were taken – plaintiff’s

statement and the statements of the two officers – and that plaintiff did not ask the investigative

employee to interview any witnesses, staff or inmate. The report does not reflect that plaintiff

advised the investigative employee of any threats. The report fails to support plaintiff’s assertion

that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury by an officer he fails to identify. 

Plaintiff’s assertion of imminent danger is also inconsistent with the following facts: (1) plaintiff

has not sued either of the officers involved in the incident on April 26, 2005; (2) plaintiff does

Case 2:05-cv-01165-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

not contend that he was in danger from either of the defendants named in his complaint; (3)

plaintiff has alleged only a due process claim; and (4) plaintiff seeks millions of dollars in

damages on the ground that the investigative employee issued his report more than 24 hours

before the hearing. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he filed this action because he was under

imminent danger of serious physical injury from the defendants named in his complaint.

Because plaintiff has failed to show that he was in imminent danger of serious

physical injury when he filed this action or that the newly asserted danger arose in connection

with the claims alleged in this action, plaintiff may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff

was cautioned that failure to pay the $250.00 filing fee within twenty days would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that this action be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new action accompanied by

payment of the $250.00 filing fee.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 28, 2005.

DAD:13:lg

camp1165.fpf

Case 2:05-cv-01165-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 07/29/05 Page 3 of 3