Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01545/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01545-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Castro
Defendant
Michael Gonzales
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CASTRO,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1545-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERING

PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(ECF No. 4)

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no 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 a facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed

on the ground 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 injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

This Plaintiff has, on at least three prior occasions, brought civil actions challenging the

conditions of his confinement. At least three actions were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Galaza, et al., 1:00-cv-6028-

AWI-HGB (PC) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on June 15, 2001); Gonzales v. Gadsden, et al., 1:04-cv5491-OWW-LJO (PC) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on December 11, 2006); and Gonzales v. Vikjord, et

al., 1:05-cv-15668-OWW-WMW (PC) (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on July8, 2008). Plaintiff is therefore

1

Case 1:09-cv-01545-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/25/10 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

not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless he alleges facts indicating that he is in imminent

danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

On June 9, 2010, the magistrate judge entered Findings and Recommendations ,

1

recommending that Plaintiff be denied in forma pauperis status and that Plaintiff be directed to

submit the $350 filing fee in full. (ECF No. 4.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff had failed

to allege specific facts showing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time

the complaint was filed. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation. (ECF

No. 5.) Plaintiff argues that he has alleged sufficient facts to show he is in imminent danger;

therefore, he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. Attached to his objections was nearly

one hundred pages of documentation which he alleges support his claim of imminent danger. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Much of the evidence presented by Plaintiff relates to incidents that do not involves the only

Defendant in the above-captioned action and are, therefore, irrelevant here. Moreover, while the

evidence shows that Plaintiff has had a number of physical encounters with correctional officers over

his long incarceration, these events are sporadic. Nothing in Plaintiff’s documentation shows that

he was in “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time his complaint was filed. Andrews

v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, based on this prior litigation history, he

is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 9, 2010, are

adopted in full; and

The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation was erroneously titled as an Order to Show Cause.

1

The body of the document, however, makes clear that the magistrate judge was recommending that the Court deny

Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. The document was also clear that Plaintiff had thirty days to file objections to the

Findings and Recommendation. (ECF No. 4 at 4.) The fact that Plaintiff then filed a document entitled “Objections

to Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge” shows that he was not confused by the erroneous title.

(ECF No. 5.)

2

Case 1:09-cv-01545-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/25/10 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

2. Plaintiff is denied permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g); 

3. Plaintiff is directed to submit the $350 filing in full within thirty days of the date of

service of this order. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to

Local Rule 11-110 for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01545-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 3