Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01560/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01560-13/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

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1560 LJO WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DWIGHT WINSLOW, 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

CCI Tehachapi, brings this civil rights action against an un-named physician contracted to treat

Plaintiff at Tehachapi. 

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

California, and transferred to this court. Plaintiff filed three cases in that court. In the order

consolidating and transferring the actions to this court, Plaintiff was advised that he has been

barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff,

incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison at the time this case was filed, alleged deficient medical

care. Plaintiff was specifically advised of the following: 

In an order dated December 22, 2004, this Court held that Plaintiff

generally is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in federal

Case 1:05-cv-01560-LJO -WMW Document 65 Filed 06/07/07 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

court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Both prior to

and since the entry of that order Plaintiff filed actions seeking to

compel prison officials at PBSP to provide him with treatment for

an injured shoulder from which he has suffered since prison

officials used force against him at High Desert State Prison in

2002. Plaintiff did receive x-rays at PBSP in May, 2004, and the

doctor told him that no injury was present. Because Plaintiff was

not allowed to see the x-rays, however, he objected to the doctor’s

conclusion and continued to seek additional diagnostic procedures

and medical care.

 

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. The allegations in this complaint consist of vague references to

some orthopedic procedure while Plaintiff was housed at Tehachapi. A review of the December

15, 2006, amended complaint reveals that Plaintiff has failed to specifically identify a named

defendant at Tehachapi, nor alleged any facts indicating that individual engaged in conduct that

subjects Plaintiff to imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Accordingly, on March 9, 2007, an order to show cause was entered, directing 

Plaintiff to show cause why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be be denied

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he be directed to pay the filing fee in full.

On March 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. 

Plaintiff’s response is 41 pages long and consists largely of copies of his medical filed and

copies of pleadings in other cases that he has filed. Plaintiff has not made a showing that the

operative pleading in this case alleges facts that satisfy the standard set forth in section 1915(g). 

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is the quality of the health care he has received. Because

Case 1:05-cv-01560-LJO -WMW Document 65 Filed 06/07/07 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

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts indicating an imminent danger of serious physical injury, he

can not proceed in forma pauperis. Should Plaintiff desire to continue in this action and

challenge the constitutional sufficiency of his medical care, me must pay the filing fee in full.

Accordingly,IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED 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 pay the filing fee, in full, or suffer dismissal of this

action pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for failure to prosecute. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

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

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01560-LJO -WMW Document 65 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3