Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01151/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01151-3/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF VACAVILLE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1151 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison Solano (CSP-SOL), who 

proceeds pro se with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 6. 

 This is the court’s third order addressing the inadequacies of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

application.1 Most recently, plaintiff submitted an application that does not include the date of his 

signature (see ECF No. 10 at 2); lacks the certification portion of the application required in this 

district (id.); and provides a copy of his prison trust account statement which, though certified, 

reflects plaintiff’s account balance only for the single date October 1, 2015 (id. at 3). Plaintiff’s 

 

1

 Plaintiff should be familiar with the pertinent requirements because he has filed more than 

fifteen cases in this court. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (a 

court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts); accord, United 

States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Case 2:15-cv-01151-AC Document 11 Filed 12/21/15 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 

2

only other pertinent filing is a copy of his prison trust account statement for the single date May 

19, 2015. See ECF No. 5. 

This court has twice informed plaintiff that he must pay the required fees ($400.00), or 

submit a fully completed in forma pauperis application that is certified by an authorized officer at 

his place of incarceration, and provide a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for 

the six-month period preceding the filing of his complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The 

court’s last order indicated that plaintiff would be accorded “one final opportunity.” See ECF No. 

7 at 1; see also id. at 2 (“Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of 

this action without prejudice.”). Plaintiff’s current filing reflects that opportunity. 

 In an effort to determine whether plaintiff should be accorded any additional guidance and 

time to comply with the court’s orders, the undersigned has conducted a preliminary review of 

plaintiff’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.2

 The complaint alleges in pertinent part: 

Since May 27, 2015, all the named defendants . . . are subjecting to 

[sic] plaintiff to obey an arbitrary, oppressive, punitive and 

ridiculous custom, practice and policy . . . [requiring prisoners to] 

take out a piece of cardboard or a yellow manila envelope through 

the cell door crack to make flags to the defendants’ booth officer to 

get the cell door opened. 

ECF No. 1 at 3; see also id. at 5-6. The complaint alleges that the challenged practice interferes 

with plaintiff’s “rights, privileges, medical and other appointments and prison program.” Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. The named defendants are City of Vallejo (the 

location of CSP-SOL), the CSP-SOL Warden, three named CSP-SOL Correctional Officers, and 

the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The 

complaint states that plaintiff’s administrative appeal on this matter was rejected three times at 

the first level; the second level was “obstructed;” and the “Third Level and the regional office 

 

2

 Once a prisoner’s in forma pauperis application is granted, or the plaintiff has paid the filing 

fee, the court is required to screen the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 

or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). See 

also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or in fact). 

Case 2:15-cv-01151-AC Document 11 Filed 12/21/15 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

referred the appeal from return to my appeals coordinator’s office whom failed to respond it” 

[sic]. Id. at 2. 

 The court finds that the allegations of the complaint fail to state a cognizable civil rights 

claim. To the extent that the challenged practice is standard at CSP-SOL, legitimate penological 

objectives support an ordered, peaceful means for prisoners to alert prison officials that they 

request leave from their cells for medical appointments or other authorized reasons. See Turner 

v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (setting forth factors to be balanced in determining whether a prison 

regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests). Moreover, plaintiff concedes 

that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies.3 For these reasons, it would be both futile 

and an unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources to permit plaintiff to again attempt to submit 

a completed in forma pauperis application. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 10, is denied because it 

remains incomplete. 

 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders, see 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and because the complaint does not state a potentially cognizable claim for 

relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A). 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

DATED: December 18, 2015 

 

3

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires prisoners to exhaust “such administrative 

remedies as are available” before commencing a suit challenging prison conditions. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934 (9th Cir. 2005). Although the 

PLRA does not require exhaustion “when circumstances render administrative remedies 

‘effectively unavailable,’” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted), 

this court need not reach that question due to the frivolity of plaintiff’s claim. 

Case 2:15-cv-01151-AC Document 11 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 3