Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05543/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05543-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CSATF/SP PHARMACY MGR, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5543 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS AND REQUIRE

PLAINTIFF TO PAY FEE WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS 

 Timothy Buford (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant a complaint on April 8,

2004. On April 20, 2004, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 

3.) 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that

“[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section 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

Case 1:04-cv-05543-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 06/06/05 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

1

 To date, Plaintiff has filed seventeen cases in this district. Among the dismissals suffered by Plaintiff that

count as strikes under 1915(g) are Buford v. Gray, CV-F-00-6206-OWW-SMS-P (dismissed for failure to state a

claim on 1/23/01), Buford v. Fresno County Jail, CV-F-00-5542-OWW-HGB-P (dismissed for failure to state a

claim on 3/21/01), and Buford v. Hicks, CV-F-02-5265-AWI-DLB-P (dismissed for failure to state a claim on

12/16/02).

2

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 

A review of the record of actions filed by Plaintiff in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California reveals that Plaintiff filed three or more actions that were

dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.1 Plaintiff has been subject to section 1915(g) since December 16, 2002, and is

precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in any action filed after that date unless Plaintiff is,

at the time the complaint is filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court

has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds that Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support a

finding that he is, at this time, under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, Plaintiff

may not proceed in forma pauperis, and must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed

with this action. Because the Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in this action, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status be

revoked and Plaintiff be ordered to submit the filing fee in full within THIRTY (30) days. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status in this action

be revoked;

2. Plaintiff be ordered to submit the $150.00 filing fee in full within THIRTY (30)

days; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $150.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days, the

action be dismissed, without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

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

THIRTY (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Case 1:04-cv-05543-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 06/06/05 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

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 3, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05543-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 06/06/05 Page 3 of 3