Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00298/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00298-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00298-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFFTO PAY $350.00

FILING FEE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OR THIS

ACTION WILL BE DISMISSED

(Doc. 2)

Plaintiff Lonnie Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2007, plaintiff filed the complaint upon which

this action proceeds and a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

 28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that

“[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section 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.” A review of the record of actions filed by plaintiff in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California reveals that plaintiff filed three or more actions

that were dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may

Case 1:07-cv-00298-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 03/22/07 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

27

28

 Among the dismissals suffered by plaintiff that count as strikes under 1915(g) are Lonnie C. Williams v. J. 1

R. Andrews, 1:01-cv-06222-REC-HGB PC (dismissed for failure to state a claim on 2/22/02); Lonnie C. Williams v.

Correctional Lt. L. L. Wood, 1:01-cv-06151-REC-LJO PC (dismissed for failure to state a claim on 2/28/02); and

Lonnie C. Williams v. A. Rendon 1:01-cv-05891-AWI-SMS PC (dismissed for failure to state a claim on 3/18/02).

2

be granted. Thus, plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in 1

forma pauperis unless plaintiff is, at the time the complaint is filed, under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that plaintiff has alleged no facts that

support a finding that he is pursuing claims in this action because he is, at this time, under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff alleges that he is being poisoned, which without question

would satisfy the imminent danger requirement. However, plaintiff is not pursuing claims against

those whom are allegedly poisoning him. Rather, plaintiff is seeking to impose liability on the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Senator Gloria Romero, Ombudsman Ken Hurdle, Sergeant R.

Silva, and Captain D. Zanchi for not responding to his letters and complaints. Plaintiff is not under

imminent danger of serious physical injury from these defendants and his pursuit of claims against

them would not remedy any alleged threat stemming from poisoning. The Court also notes that

plaintiff is seeking not relief aimed at ending the alleged threat against him but significant monetary

relief and to have the named defendants criminally charged 

Notably, plaintiff already filed suit against those whom are allegedly poisoning him in case

number 1:06-cv-01408-AWI-SMS PC Williams v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. In addition

to his poisoning claim, plaintiff’s complaint included claims which did not involve imminent threat

of serious physical injury. (06-1408, Doc. 1.) Plaintiff was informed that he would not be permitted

to evade the mandate of 1915(g) by combining claims not involving an imminent threat of serious

physical injury with a claim involving an imminent threat of serious physical injury, and plaintiff was

given the option of either paying the $350.00 filing fee in full or filing an amended complaint setting

forth only his poisoning claim. (Id., Doc. 7.) Considering plaintiff is claiming he is being poisoned,

the Court finds plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily dismissthat action rather than amend his complaint

to proceed only on his poisoning claim to be puzzling at best. (Id., Doc. 8.) 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00298-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 03/22/07 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

27

28

3

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action,

and must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff shall submit the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days; and

3. If plaintiff fails to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days, this

action will be dismissed, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00298-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3