Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02159/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02159-1/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-06-2159 DFL DAD P

vs.

G. CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed October 13, 2006, the court found that plaintiff is barred by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was therefore ordered to pay the

required filing fee of $350.00 within twenty days. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply

with the order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The twenty day

period has now expired, and plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

In a statement filed on October 23, 2006, plaintiff does not deny that he has had

numerous cases dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff contends that he

was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he was subjected to excessive force

by the defendants in June 2006. He reiterates the allegation of his complaint that he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury now because he is “unable to move his right shoulder

bone.” Plaintiff asserts that the bone “can be cracked” and argues that this fact “suggests” that he

Case 2:06-cv-02159-DFL-DAD Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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

2

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff also argues that the damages

requested in his complaint are related to the claims alleged in his complaint. Plaintiff concludes

that his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied because “this alters the

fileing [sic] fee.”

Plaintiff’s logic is flawed. The fact that plaintiff believed himself to be in danger

of serious physical injury in June 2006 does not establish that he is in danger of such injury now. 

Plaintiff’s assertions that he cannot move his right shoulder bone and that the bone could be

cracked do not demonstrate that plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the

present time. The theoretical danger is speculative at best. Plaintiff has not shown that the

monetary damages he seeks from the defendants would protect him from the theoretical danger

he describes.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this

action be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a paid action.

These findings and recommendations will be 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. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

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

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 2, 2006.

DAD:13

camp2159.fpf

Case 2:06-cv-02159-DFL-DAD Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 2