Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01322/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01322-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Tony Campbell,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-1322 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

M. Pennen,

Defendant.

-oOoNovember 18, 2005, I gave plaintiff 20 days to explain in

writing how the facts alleged in his complaint place him “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury” and warned him that

failure so to do would result in a recommendation his request to

proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Plaintiff has responded.

Plaintiff alleges that from May 2005 until July 2005, he

suffered severe pain in his left ear and could not hear with it

because of delays between treatments to remove ear wax. 

Case 2:05-cv-01322-DFL-PAN Document 6 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Neither past injury nor the possibility of future injury

satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d

559, 562 (2nd Cir. 2002); Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307,

313 (3d Cir. 2001); Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715 (8th Cir.

1998). Petitioner does not allege he presently is in severe

pain. 

Accordingly, I find plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he

is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

The court should deny plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and direct the clerk of the court to close this

case. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01322-DFL-PAN Document 6 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2