Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00946/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00946-1/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

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff, CV F 07 0946 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JUDGE VAN SICKLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action challenging

the conditions of his confinement.

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

Salinas Valley State Prison, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a Los

Angeles Superior Court Judge, court officials and correctional officials employed by the

California Department of Corrections. Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth claims regarding his

attempts at challenging his underlying criminal conviction.

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.” 28

Case 1:07-cv-00946-AWI-WMW Document 4 Filed 07/09/07 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

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

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. Blackman v. Harwell, et al., 99-5822 REC HGB P (E.

Dist. Cal.); Blackman v. Medina, 05-CV-05390-SI (N. Dist. Cal.); Blackman v. Variz , 06-CV

06398 SI (N. Dist. 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. There are no

such facts alleged in this case. The allegations in this action related to Plaintiff’s ability to

litigate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to show cause,

within thirty days of the date of service of this order, why his request to proceed in forma

pauperis should not be denied. Failure to file a response will result in a recommendation that

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00946-AWI-WMW Document 4 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2