(PC) Ransom v. Scribner, et al., No. 1:2006cv00208 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 56 in Full and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 52 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/9/2010. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ransom v. Scribner, et al. Doc. 61 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00208-LJO-DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS v. A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., (DOCS. 52, 56) 12 Defendants. / 13 14 Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 15 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint 16 against Defendants Scribner and Duncan for violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was 17 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 18 302. 19 On February 4, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to revoke Plaintiff’s in 20 forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for accruing three cases dismissed for failure 21 to state a claim. On August 3, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 22 herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection 23 to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection 24 to the Findings and Recommendations on August 20, 2010. Plaintiff also filed an accompanying 25 request for judicial notice. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 28 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff contends that he has not accrued three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 2 Plaintiff contends that two of his dismissed cases, Ransom v. Chief Williams, et al.,Case No. 96-CV- 3 8203-MRP (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed December 10, 1996), and Ransom v. Doe, Case No. 96-CV-8204- 4 RSWL (C.D. Cal.) (dismissed December 6, 1996), were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and not 5 for failure to state a claim. These two cases were dismissed pursuant to the favorable termination 6 rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As stated previously by the Magistrate Judge in the 7 Findings and Recommendations, “Plaintiff’s claims were either premature because Plaintiff had not 8 achieved a favorable termination, or Plaintiff’s claims were non-cognizable because Plaintiff failed 9 to establish the required predicates for stating a claim. In either situation, Plaintiff fails to state a 10 claim.” (Findings and Recommendations 3:18-21, Doc. 56.) Plaintiff thus accrued three strikes. 11 However, Plaintiff qualifies for the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g), and may proceed in 12 forma pauperis in this action. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 3, 2010 is adopted in full; and 15 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed February 4, 2010, is denied. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 September 9, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
