Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01223/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01223-0/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

Absent a showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury, plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma 1

pauperis in this action because he has had at least three previous actions dismissed for failure to state a claim,

frivolousness, or maliciousness. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers 1:06-CV00671-OWW-SMS-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Confinement SHU (dismissed July 17, 2006, for

failure to state a claim and frivolousness); 1:06-CV-00775-OWW-LJO-P Weaver v. California Correctional

Institution - Third Watch Sergeant (dismissed July 17, 2006, for failure to state a claim and frivolousness); and 1:06-

CV-00863-OWW-SMS-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Law Library (dismissed August 1, 2006, for

failure to state a claim and frivolousness). 

 Given plaintiff’s pattern of conduct, as set forth in this order, the Court is of the opinion that it is more 2

expeditious to screen and dismiss this action rather than expend its overtaxed resources attempting to obtain the

filing fee from plaintiff prior to screening. Such a course of action would likely ultimately result in dismissal for

failure to pay the filing fee after the issuance of multiple orders, rather than the actual obtainment of the filing fee

from plaintiff. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAILROOM STAFF,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01223-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

 (Doc. 1) 

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on September 7, 2006, but has not

paid the $350.00 filing fee.

1

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 2

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

Case 1:06-cv-01223-LJO-LJO Document 4 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 The Court takes judicial notice of case numbers 1:06-CV-01197-AWI-DLB-P Weaver v. California 3

Correctional Institution First Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01198-AWI-SMS-P Weaver v. California Correctional

Institution First Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01199-OWW-WMW-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution First

Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01200-AWI-WMW-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution First Watch 4-4A-4;

1:06-CV-01201-AWI-DLB-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution First Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01202-

OWW-WMW-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution First Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01203-OWW-LJO-P

Weaver v. California Correctional Institution First Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01204-OWW-SMS-P Weaver v.

California Correctional Institution Building 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01205-AWI-SMS-P Weaver v. California Correctional

Institution Building 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01206-AWI-SMS-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Third

Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV-01207-OWW-WMW-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Second Watch 4-4A4; 1:06-CV-01208-OWW-LJO-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Second Watch 4-4A-4; 1:06-CV2

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he mailed confidential legal mail to the legislative bill

room and has not received any correspondence in response in violation of his constitutional rights.

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact, Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984),

and the Court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal

theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless, Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The test for

maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the Court to “determine the ... good faith of the

applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v. Newsome,

795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith most commonly is found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity of suits.

A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex defendants or abuse the judicial process by

re-litigating claims decided in prior cases. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981);

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10th Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627,

628-29 (N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 1986) (court has inherent

power to dismiss case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of the judicial process”). 

As of September 25, 2006, plaintiff has filed one-hundred twenty-four actionsin this district,

forty-four of which were filed in September of 2006 alone. On September 1, 2006, plaintiff filed

fourteen civil rights complaints, including this one. Not one of the complaints was accompanied by

the filing fee, and twelve of the fourteen cases are virtually identical, with minor exceptions such as

switching back and forth between suing the First and Second Watches. Further, in some complaints

3

Case 1:06-cv-01223-LJO-LJO Document 4 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

01209-AWI-WMW-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Second Watch 4-4A-4; and 1:06-CV-01210-

OWW-LJO-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Second Watch 4-4A-4.

 The Court takes judicial notice of the dockets in case numbers 1:06-CV-00278-OWW-LJO-P Weaver v. 4

Tehachapi Mail Room and 1:06-CV-00468-OWW-SMS-P Weaver v. California Correctional Institution

Confinement SHU, demonstrating plaintiff’s ability to respond to court orders and his ability to keep track of his

multitude of cases.

3

Plaintiff omits his allegations that he is on a mind reading device and/or that he is being spoken to

through the vents. However, all twelve involve Plaintiff’s claim that he is being harassed, watched,

etc. by Defendants. Although the Court is mindful that mental illness may play a part in Plaintiff’s

allegations, Plaintiff is capable of correctly filling out complaint forms and responding to court

orders. Plaintiff is creating a tremendous burden on this Court’s scare resources by filing multiple, 4

duplicative actions, and is depriving other litigants of the Court’s much needed time and attention

in their pending cases. A review of the Ninth Circuit’s dockets reveals that Plaintiff has been

actively filing appeals as well, with thirty-three appeals filed, twenty-six of which were filed in 2006.

Plaintiff is not constitutionally entitled to a written response from the Legislative Bill Room

as he contends. Accordingly, Plaintiff failsto state a cognizable claim for relief and the action must

be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of

being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9 Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court th

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California. Within ELEVEN (11) days after being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation, 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.” Replies to the Objectionsshall be served and filed within TEN (10) court days

(plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then review

Case 1:06-cv-01223-LJO-LJO Document 4 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01223-LJO-LJO Document 4 Filed 10/18/06 Page 4 of 4