Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06741/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06741-1/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

DEE ANGELO GATHRITE,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6741 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has submitted request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a).

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at the

California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, brings this civil rights action against the

correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at Corcoran State Prison. 

The allegations in the complaint stem from a fight that occurred between Plaintiff and

another inmate at Corcoran State Prison on January 20, 2004. Plaintiff alleges that during a

fistfight between inmates, he was shot with a 37 mm baton launcher. Plaintiff alleges that there

was no verbal warning. Plaintiff also claims that he was subjected to retaliation for attempting to

file a grievance. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Martinez retaliated against Plaintiff

Case 1:04-cv-06741-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 07/17/06 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

for attempting to find out the name of the guard who shot him. Plaintiff also makes allegations

regarding the adequacy of his medical treatment. 

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.” 

This plaintiff has, on 3 prior occasions, brought civil actions challenging the conditions

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

upon which relief can be granted. Gathrite v. Marshall, 91-cv-01309-DFL (N.D. Cal.); Gathrite

v. Marshall, 91-cv-02431-EFL 9N.D. Cal.); and Gathrite v. Andrews, 95-cv-08766-AHM-RC

(C.D. Cal.) 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. 

Here, Plaintiff levels claims of retaliation and inadequate medical care while Plaintiff

was housed at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CCI Tehachapi. 

There are no allegations indicating that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious injury. 

Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be revoked. 

2. Plaintiff be ordered to submit the $150.00 filing fee in full within thirty days.

3. Should plaintiff fail to pay the filing fee, this action be dismissed, without

prejudice for his failure to do so, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

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, any party may file

Case 1:04-cv-06741-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 07/17/06 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

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the

judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 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: July 17, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06741-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 3