Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00370/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD ANDREW WHITE, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:08-cv-00370-LJO-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE

FILING FEE 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Plaintiff’s Ineligibility to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

On March 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint in which he

asserted that this Court’s charging him a filing fee was a

violation of unspecified constitutional rights and his right to

proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not pay the

filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no

Case 1:08-cv-00370-LJO -SMS Document 2 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade 1

Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.

1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir.

1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir.

1980). 

2

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 any facility, brought an action or

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

grounds 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 physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).

A “prisoner” as used in § 1915 “means any person

incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of,

convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for,

violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(h).

Plaintiff’s address, as reflected upon his complaint and the

docket of this Court, is the California Correctional Institution 1

at Tehachapi (CCI). Further, Plaintiff’s address reflects a

“CDC/BKG#” of D-50298, which the Court interprets as a booking

number for the California Department of Corrections. Drawing

reasonable inferences, the Court finds that Plaintiff is now and

was at the time of filing the instant action a prisoner

incarcerated in a facility.

“Strikes” under the statute are prior cases or appeals,

brought while the Plaintiff was a prisoner, which were dismissed

Case 1:08-cv-00370-LJO -SMS Document 2 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to

state a claim. Lira v. Herrara, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 n. 7 (9th

Cir. 2005). 

The dockets of this Court reflect that three prior actions

of Plaintiff, filed while he was incarcerated at CCI, were

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be

granted: White v. Calderon, 1:03-cv-05581-AWI-DLB, was dismissed

on November 20, 2003, for failure to obey a court order and

failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted, and

judgment was entered on November 21, 2003; White v. J. Lanham,

1:03-cv-05568-OWW-DLB, was dismissed on December 16, 2003, for

failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim upon

which relief might be granted, and judgment was entered on

December 17, 2003; and White v. D. Barker, 1:03-cv-05877-OWW-WMW,

was dismissed on May 12, 2004, for failure to obey a court order

and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, and judgment was entered on May 13, 2004. In the last

case, White v. D. Barker, the findings and recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge were to dismiss the action because of failure

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; Plaintiff’s

initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because

Plaintiff had not stated a claim, and Plaintiff had failed to

file an amended complaint as directed by the Court. The Court’s

order dismissing the action stated that the action was dismissed

for failure to obey an order of the Court. However, it is clear

that the order in question that was disobeyed was the order to

file an amended complaint in which a claim was stated. Further,

the order of dismissal adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings

Case 1:08-cv-00370-LJO -SMS Document 2 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 5
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

and recommendation “in full.” (Order of May 12, 2004, p. 2.)

Accordingly, the Court understands the dismissal in White v.

Barker to have been for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

The dockets and filed documents in the previously dismissed

cases all reflect that the Plaintiff was an inmate of CCI at all

pertinent times. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff

was a prisoner at the time the actions were brought.

The Court has reviewed the complaint filed in the instant

action and has found no allegations that would warrant an

inference that Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.

Accordingly, the Court finds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g), Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis,

and thus Plaintiff should be ordered to pay the $350.00 filing

fee for this action before it may proceed.

II. Recommendation

It IS RECOMMENDED that:

1) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff be found

ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in this action; and

2) Plaintiff be required to pay the $350.00 filing fee in

full within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $350.00 filing fee in

full within thirty days, this action should be dismissed, without

prejudice.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

Case 1:08-cv-00370-LJO -SMS Document 2 Filed 03/27/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

provisions 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 thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, 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 objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review 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 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00370-LJO -SMS Document 2 Filed 03/27/08 Page 5 of 5