Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00671-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Correctional Institution
Defendant
Willie Weaver
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 To date, Plaintiff has filed 58 cases in this Court, most of which the Magistrate Judges have recommended 1

dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief and/or as frivolous. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

 INSTITUTION CONFINEMENT SHU,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06-671 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND AS

FRIVOLOUS (Doc. 1) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

TERMINATE ACTION 

 Willie Weaver (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 14, 2006.1

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

Case 1:06-cv-00671-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/17/06 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

2

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

The Court has examined the Complaint and finds that it not only fails to state a claim for

relief but that the allegations are frivolous. A complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable

basis in law or fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.1984). 

As in the majority of other cases filed by Plaintiff, the Complaint alleges that the

Defendants, all of whom have been identified solely by their job titles of Director, Warden, Asst.

Warden, and Captain are in a conspiracy watching Plaintiff night and day from a wall cameras

from [the] neighboring cell (Complaint at 6.) Plaintiff also contends that the named Defendants

have placed on him a mind device machine .Id. 

Even construing these allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, his allegations

have no basis in fact or law. Plaintiff has also failed to link any of his claims to any named

Defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Additionally, verbal harassment or abuse

alone is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Oltarzewski v.

Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987), and threats do not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation. Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff requests 10

Case 1:06-cv-00671-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/17/06 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

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) preclude the privileges of proceeding in forma pauperis “if 2

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.” 

28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.” Andrews v. King, 398

F.3d 1113, 116 n.1 (9 Cir. 2005). th

3

million dollars in compensatory damages and 10 million dollars in punitive damages. The

amount of monetary damages requested by a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis has been held

relevant to a frivolity determination. Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 257 (4 Cir. 2005.) th

The Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by

amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9 Cir. 1987). As such, the Court HEREBY th

ORDERS: 

1. The instant action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

upon which relief can be granted and as FRIVOLOUS. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate this action in its entirety.

The dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” within the meaning of Title 28

U.S.C.§ 1915(g).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00671-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 3