Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00334/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00334-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER SHANE LANGSTON,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-0334 CKD P

vs.

WIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two matters are before the court.

I. Motion To Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status

On May 24, 2012, the court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). Defendant Win (defendant) has filed a motion requesting that plaintiff’s IFP

status be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute reads as follows:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding [in forma pauperis] 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.

Case 2:12-cv-00334-TLN-CKD Document 28 Filed 01/02/13 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

Defendant points to three actions brought in this court which defendant believes

constitute “strikes.” One of the cases is Langston v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 1:01-cv-5762 1

OWW SMS P. While that case was brought by a “Walter Langston,” it was not brought by

plaintiff. That “Walter Langston’s” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

identification number was H-66998 and he was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison when the

action was commenced. See Dkt. No. 4 at 3. On September 17, 2001, the other “Walter

Langston” informed that court that he had been paroled to Oakland. 

At the time 1:01-cv-5762 OWW SMS P was commenced, plaintiff’s inmate

number was, as it is now, P-53446, and he was housed at Deuel Vocational Institution where he

remained until 2002. Opp’n, Ex. C at 7. Furthermore, the subject matter of 1:01-cv-5762

OWW SMS P concerns events occurring at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Records provided by

plaintiff indicate he was never housed there. Opp’n, Ex. C.2

Because Langston v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 1:01-cv-5762 OWW SMS P does

not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), defendant’s motion to have plaintiff’s IFP

status revoked will be denied. 

3

II. Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry Of Default

Plaintiff asserts default should be entered against defendant. However, when

plaintiff filed his motion on November 26, 2012, the deadline for defendant to file his response

to plaintiff’s amended complaint, December 9, 2012 (see Dkt. No. 25) had not yet passed. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Because defendant Win has not yet filed an answer

 Defendant asserts plaintiff has accumulated “at least three” “strikes,” but only points to 1

three cases as being potential “strikes.”

 Defendant notes correctly that the docket for 1:01-cv-5762 OWW SMS P identifies the 2

plaintiff in this action as the plaintiff in that action. However, that is due to court error. When

plaintiff updated his address it was inadvertently applied to all cases in the court, open and

closed, where “Walter Langston” was or is a litigant. 

 The court has independently reviewed all of the cases filed by plaintiff in this court. 3

Plaintiff has, at most, two “strikes.”

2

Case 2:12-cv-00334-TLN-CKD Document 28 Filed 01/02/13 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

or any other proper response to plaintiff’s amended complaint as described in Rule 12 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant will be granted 14 days within which to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Win’s motion for an order revoking plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

status (Dkt. No. 21) is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (Dkt. No. 23) is denied.

3. Defendant Win is granted an extension of time of 14 days to file his response

to plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Dated: January 2, 2013

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

lang0334.3ks(1)

3

Case 2:12-cv-00334-TLN-CKD Document 28 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 3