Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00607/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00607-1/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff, CV F 08 0607 AWI WMW PC

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

WARDEN HEDGPETH, et al.,

Defendant.

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

and Rehabilitation at Kern Valley State Prison, brings this civil rights action against the Warden

and other correctional officials at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff claims that his legal mail

was interfered with and the money was taken from his mail by correctional staff. 

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

Case 1:08-cv-00607-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 07/07/08 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

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. Among the dismissals suffered by plaintiff that

count as strikes under 1915(g) are case numbers 3:06-cv-05992-SI Smith v. Holm (N.D. Cal.)

(dismissed 01/22/2007 for failure to state a claim); 1:07-cv-00509-LJO-SMS Smith v. Scribner

(E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 05/04/2007 for frivolousness, maliciousness, and failure to state a claim);

1:06-cv-00310-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed 05/09/2007 for failure to state a

claim); and 1:07-cv-00531-AWI-SMS Smith v. Social Sec. Admin. Office, Employees (E.D.

Cal.) (dismissed 05/09/2007 for failure to state a claim).

Here, Plaintiff alleges no conduct indicating that he is in imminent danger of

serious physical injury. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, On June 3, 2008, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within thirty

days, why he should not be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed to pay the

filing fee in full. Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

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

1915(g).

2. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $350 filing fee in full. 

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). Within

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

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

Case 1:08-cv-00607-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 07/07/08 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

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 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00607-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 07/07/08 Page 3 of 3