Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00802/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00802-1/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

GARY V. NOLLER, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0802 DFL KJM P

vs.

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, 

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance

with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

A court may deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis if the complaint fails to

state a claim under the civil rights act. See Collins v. Pitchess, 641 F.3d 740, 742-43 (9th Cir.

1981). In this case, plaintiff alleges that the Medical Board of California uses different standards

to license medical personnel who work for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

than for those who work in other venues. He raises a facial challenge to the practice.

Plaintiff has cited no constitutional provision which he alleges is violated by the

practice and the court has found none. This complaint appears to raise questions of state law

Case 2:07-cv-00802-JKS-KJM Document 9 Filed 06/06/07 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

only. Although the court expresses no opinion on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, if litigation is

appropriate at all, it appears to be appropriate in the state courts. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).

DATED: June 5, 2007. 

2

noll0802.56

Case 2:07-cv-00802-JKS-KJM Document 9 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 2