Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00204/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00204-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONNY RAY HARDAWAY,

Plaintiff, CV F 07 0204 LJO WMW P

vs. ORDER RE FINDING AND 

 RECOMMENDATION (DOC 17)

C. LOCKARD, et al.,

Defendants.

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

conditions of his confinement.

On June 4, 2007, an order was entered, directing Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty

days, why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). July 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order.

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

Case 1:07-cv-00204-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 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

2

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

a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hardaway v. Money, CV S 01 0458 FCD DAD P;

Hardaway v. Wright, CV S 01 0958 GEB DAD P; Hardaway v. State of California, CV S 06

0695 MCE PAN P. 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. Plaintiff claims that Defendants interfered with a telephone call

that Plaintiff was involved with. Plaintiff claims that since the telephone call was a court ordered

call, Defendants interfered with his access to the courts. Plaintiff has not specifically charged

any individual defendant with facts that meet the standard set forth in section 1915(g).

Accordingly, on August 7, 2007, findings and recommendations were entered,

recommending that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).

2. Plaintiff be directed to submit, within thirty days of the date of service of this order,

the $350 filing fee in full. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for failure to obey a court order. 

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73-305, this court has conducted

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August

6, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 1:07-cv-00204-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 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

3

3. Plaintiff is directed to submit, within thirty days of the date of service of this

order, the $350 filing fee for this action in full. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in dismissal

of this action pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00204-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3