Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06187/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06187-13/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

TIMOTHY BUFORD, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PAROLE AGENT MOUNTS, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-02-6187 OWW/DLB P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 80)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in pro per, moves for

reconsideration of the Order filed on April 27, 2007 dismissing

Plaintiff’s complaint, revoking his in forma pauperis status, and

directing Plaintiff to pay the $150.00 filing fee.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

Plaintiff argues that the civil action filed in this court,

Buford v. Fresno County Jail, No. CV-F-00-5542, should not count

as the third “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g):

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil

action or appeal a judgment in a civil action

or proceeding under this section if the

Case 1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB Document 81 Filed 05/30/07 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

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 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.

The Complaint in Buford v. Fresno County Jail was filed on

April 6, 2000. Plaintiff’s address was listed as the Solano

County Jail, Fairfield California. Plaintiff contends, however,

that he was released from the Fresno County Jail on April 3, 2000

and was re-arrested and re-booked into the Fresno County Jail on

April 4, 2000. In his Objections to the Findings and

Recommendation, Plaintiff asserted that “[t]he case, Buford v.

Fresno County Jail was given to Plaintiff’s jail officials at or

briefly bore April 3, 2000 “release date.” Plaintiff argues:

These facts substantiate and differentiate

the attributing factors ill-holding the

Plaintiff to an invalid ‘third-strike’ simply

because during the mailing and actual filing

of the Buford vs. Fresno County Jail,

complaint Plaintiff was ‘released’ from

custody and re-arrested between April 3 and

April 4, 2000... As such, continuous custody

is not the applicable standard to which this

issue should be resolved and that the actual

filing time, mailing time and receiving time

of the complaint by the Court literally and

in the culmination of facts that avoid ‘third

strike applicability’ to the Plaintiff which

only exist because the defendants contend

that ‘the plaintiff “was incarcerated” during

the filing of the Buford v. Fresno County

Jail complaint.

Plaintiff’s statement of grounds for reconsideration as well

as the docket in No. CV-F-00-5542, demonstrate that he was

Case 1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB Document 81 Filed 05/30/07 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

incarcerated when he filed the Complaint in Buford v. Fresno

County Jail, No. CV-F-00-5542. That Plaintiff presents documents

from which it might be inferred that he was briefly released from

the custody of the Fresno County Jail sometime during the evening

of April 3, 2000 until sometime during April 4, 2000 does not

negate the fact of incarceration at the time the action was

commenced.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB Document 81 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 3