Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05593/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05593-2/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

Plaintiff has been granted leave to amend the complaint four times. This action proceeds 1

on the April 20, 2006, fifth amended complaint. Plaintiff filed the fifth amended complaint along

with three other inmates. In the order of June 22, 2005, Plaintiff was advised that this action will

be construed as a civil action brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf. The court will not consider

claims brought on behalf of any other individual. This action therefore proceeds with Plaintiff

Jameson as the sole Plaintiff. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY S. JAMESON,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5593 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SCOTT RAWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action challenging

the conditions of his confinement.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at

Pleasant Valley State Prison, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant

correctional officials employed by the California Department of Corrections. Plaintiff’s

1

complaint sets forth claims regarding conduct that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Avenal

State Prison. 

Plaintiff’s claims stem from prison disturbances that occurred on April and

Case 1:03-cv-05593-LJO-MJS Document 33 Filed 12/26/06 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

2

November of 2002, injuries resulting from those events, and the classification and assignment of

Plaintiff and other inmates. Plaintiff also sets forth allegations regarding the release of a

mentally ill inmate. Plaintiff also sets forth claims regarding medical care while housed at

Avenal. Plaintiff claims that he was denied parole despite having a maximum release date. 

Plaintiff claims that he had been denied adequate access to the law library and to legal resources. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied basic necessities for sanitation, specifically, he was only

distributed one half bar of soap and one roll of toilet paper per week. Plaintiff also claims that

defendants are delaying the processing of his inmate appeals and, in some cases, refusing to

process them. All of the allegations in the fifth amended complaint concern conduct that

occurred at Avenal State Prison.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner

bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while

incarcerated or detained in a facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States

that was dismissed on the ground 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 injury.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

This plaintiff has, on 3 prior occasions, brought civil actions challenging the

conditions of his confinement. All three action were dismissed as frivolous, or for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted. Jameson v. Ratelle, 96-0299 J (CM) (So. Dist. Cal.

Jan. 27, 1997); Jameson v. Cal. Dept. Of Corrections, 96-1175 H (So. Dist. Cal. Jan. 24, 1997);

Jameson v. Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility , 96-1797 K (So. Dist. Cal. Jan. 22, 1997). 

 Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless he alleges facts indicating

that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. There are no such facts alleged in this

case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to show cause,

Case 1:03-cv-05593-LJO-MJS Document 33 Filed 12/26/06 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

within thirty days of the date of service of this order, why his request to proceed in forma

pauperis should not be denied. Failure to file a response will result in a recommendation that

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05593-LJO-MJS Document 33 Filed 12/26/06 Page 3 of 3