(PC) Million v. Green Wall Guards et al, No. 2:2007cv02218 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/4/2008 recommending that this action be dismissed re 1 Complaint filed by Charlie Lee Million. Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Matson, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Million v. Green Wall Guards et al Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLIE LEE MILLION, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-07-2218 MCE KJM P vs. GREEN WALL GUARDS, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state inmate, who sent a letter to the United States District Court for 17 the Northern District of California, which was in turn transferred to this district. Plaintiff has 18 filed neither a civil rights complaint nor a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 In the letter, plaintiff complains that he does not belong in California State 20 Prison–Sacramento, which is a maximum security institution, and that the “Green Wall” guards 21 are blocking his transfer to California State Prison–Los Angeles. 22 However, in Million v. Vasconcellos, Civ. No. S-03-0054 LKK GGH P, the court 23 found plaintiff had “struck out” within the meaning of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act 24 (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This court may take judicial notice of the records of other cases. 25 United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119-20 (9th Cir. 1980). When an inmate has “struck 26 out,” the court must determine whether plaintiff’s complaint shows he is “under imminent 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 danger of serious physical injury” before permitting him to proceed without prepayment of costs. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s exceedingly vague allegations do not satisfy this standard. 3 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 6 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 10 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: February 4, 2008. 12 13 14 2 mill2218.56 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
