Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20200115_0000149.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 04:38:15
Document Index: 123397292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1914', '§ 1983', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

FindACase™ | Jones v. Caneda
Jones v. Caneda
GARLAND JONES, CDCR #F-47928, Plaintiff,
SGT. CANEDA; SGT. ESTAUCIO, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) [ECF NO. 2] AND (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(A)
Plaintiff, Garland Jones, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), in San Diego, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff claims two RJD correctional sergeants have “harassed” him, “diminished [his] ability to file legal documents, ” denied him access to the legal library, “disrupted [his] program, ” and attempted to “undermine” his “legal actions.” Id. at 2‒4. He has not prepaid the full civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2).
All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). Prisoners like Plaintiff, however, “face an additional hurdle.” Id.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and finds it contains no “plausible allegations” to suggest he “faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Instead, as described above, Plaintiff seeks to sue two RJD officials based on claims that they have all interfered with his ability to file and gather documentation he claims relevant to unspecified complaints and other “legal matters.” See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2‒4. These claims fail to plausibly meet § 1915(g)'s exception for imminent danger. See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055-56 (plaintiff must allege to face a real, proximate and/or ongoing danger at the time of filing); Prophet v. Clark, No. CV 1-08-00982-FJM, 2009 WL 1765197, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2009) (finding prisoner's access to the courts, interference with legal mail, and retaliation claims insufficient to satisfy § 1915(g) exception in cases of “imminent danger of serious physical injury”).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And while Defendants typically carry the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating a prisoner is not entitled to proceed IFP, Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119, “in some instances, the district court docket may be sufficient to show that a prior dismissal satisfies at least one on the criteria under ...