Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01882/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01882-1/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS, 1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 12.)

vs.

ORDER VACATING ORDER AND

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al., REINSTATING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS

 (Doc. 11.)

Defendants.

 /

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lonnie Williams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint on October 27, 2009. (Doc. 1.) 

On November 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 5.) 

On March 11, 2010, the undersigned issued an order finding Plaintiff ineligible to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and requiring Plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee for

this action within thirty days. (Doc. 11.) On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to

reconsider its order. (Doc. 12.)

II. RECONSIDERATION

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

1

Case 1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA Document 13 Filed 04/30/10 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

27

28

(en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party show that

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court's order of March 11, 2010, finding him

ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff argues that he is eligible

to proceed in forma pauperis because at the time he filed the complaint for this action, he was under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

III. SECTION 1915(g)

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs proceedings in forma pauperis. 

Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this

section if the 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 court has found that Plaintiff has had three or more actions dismissed as frivolous, as

malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court also found 1

that Plaintiff was not under imminent danger at the time he filed the complaint. (See Doc. 11.)

However, Plaintiff argues that at the time he filed the complaint, he was under imminent danger

because he was being deliberately poisoned him with arsenic by correctional officers. The court has

re-reviewed the original complaint. In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleges that since his arrival

at Corcoran State Prison on September 21, 2009, defendants and other correctional officers have

retaliated against him for filing and maintaining grievances against prison officials, and for his role

as a witness in a civil case. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired against him by placing poison

The Court takes judicial notice of 4:04-cv-00782-CW Williams v. McGrath, et al (N.D. Cal.) (dismiss ed 1

for failure to state a claim on 06/25/2004), 4:04-cv-02543-CW Williams v. Hagar, et al. (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed for

failure to state a claim on 11/10/2004), and C-04-3211-CW(PR) In Re: Antonio Luis Williams (N.D. Cal.)

(dismissed for no legal merit on 12/22/2004 by order finding plaintiff barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under § 1915(g) due to

three strikes in the Northern District of California court).

2

Case 1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA Document 13 Filed 04/30/10 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

27

28

in his food, which caused him to become very sick, and then denying him emergency medical care. 

Plaintiff alleges that he "is still being poisoned through [his] foods and deprived emergency or any

medical treatments." Based on these allegations, the court finds that Plaintiff has shown he was

under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the original complaint. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is not precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis in

this action. The court shall vacate its order and reinstate Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is GRANTED;

2. The court's order of March 11, 2010 is VACATED in its entirety; and 

3. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REINSTATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA Document 13 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 3