Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00740-5/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

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 08 0740 AWI WMW PC

vs. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC 14)

ORDER DENYING MOTION (DOC 15)

WARDEN GONZALES, et al.,

DefendanSt.

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 CCI Tehachapi, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional

officials employed by the CDCR at Tehachapi. Plaintiff claims that he is illegally housed in

Administrative Segregation. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a

Case 1:08-cv-00740-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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

2

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.” 

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. Larson v. Runnels, et al., 2:06 CV 00940 GEB GGH PC; Larson v. 

Patton, et al. 2:07 CV 01043 FCD JFM PC; Larson v. Runnels, et al., 2:07 CV 00806 FCD DAD

PC. 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. Plaintiff alleges no such facts

in this case.

Accordingly, on September 4, 2008, findings and recommendations were entered,

recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and Plaintiff be

directed to submit the $350 filing fee in full. On September 8, 2008, Plaintiff filed objections,

titled as a Motion to Show Cause. 

In his objections, Plaintiff challenges the cases referred to above. In case number 2:06-CV

0940 FCDJFM P, Plaintiff contends that in a separate case, the claim was found to have merit. .

Plaintiff argues that the case should therefore not count as a strike. That case was dismissed with

prejudice on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for

relief. The Magistrate Judge ruled that “the actions of prison officials in banning tobbaco cannot

possibly be an Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment violation.” Plaintiff challenged the

ban on tobbaco. A review of the docket in that case reveals that Plaintiff did not file any objections,

or any post judgment motions. The case that Plaintiff refers to, 2:06-CV-1413 ALA P, was brought

by Plaintiff, challenging the ban on tobacco and other “tobacco substitutes” such as snuff. In that

case, summary judgment was entered against Plaintiff. The court specifically held that “the instant

Case 1:08-cv-00740-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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

3

case differs from these other cases only in that Mr. Larson, in addition to challenging the smoking

ban, focuses specifically on the ban of other “tobacco substitutes,” such as snuff. The cases are not

identical. In case number 2:06-CV-0940 FCD JFM P, a recommendation of dismissal with prejudice

was entered, no objections were filed, and judgment was entered. The strike stands.

In case number 2:07 CV 1043 FCD JFM P, Plaintiff contends that he filed a motion to retract

the complaint before he filed “for in forma pauperis status.” That case was initiated by civil

complaint filed on June 1, 2007. On June 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to retract the complaint.

On June 22, 2007, an order was entered, finding that Plaintiff “has not demonstrated good cause to

retract the original complaint.” The motion was denied. On September 5, 2007, a recommendation

was entered, recommending dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff did not

file objections, and on October 15, 2007, judgment was entered. No post judgment motions were

filed. This strike stands.

In case number 2:07 CV 0806 FCD DAD P, Plaintiff makes a nonsense argument that his

“invention of primary case transmission is reason for recall of commitment circumstances.” On

December 21, 2007, a recommendation of dismissal with prejudice was entered, and no objections

were filed. Judgment was entered on February 4, 2008. This strike stands. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73-305, this

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

September 4, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g);

3. Plaintiff’s motion to show cause, which has been construed as objections, is

Case 1:08-cv-00740-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 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

4

DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff is directed to submit the $350 filing fee in full, within thirty days of

the date of service of this order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of

this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00740-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 10/15/08 Page 4 of 4