-GSA (PC) Saunders v. Cate et al, No. 1:2006cv01567 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate The Dismissal of This Action Be Denied 30 ; (OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/24/11: Matter referred to Judge Ishii.(Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GSA (PC) Saunders v. Cate et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON SAUNDERS, 12 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA-PC Plaintiff, MATTHEW CATE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION BE DENIED (Doc. 30.) Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 13 14 vs. 15 16 / 17 18 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19 Jason Saunders (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 13, 2006. (Doc. 2.) On October 21 27, 2006 and February 1, 2007, Plaintiff submitted applications to proceed in forma pauperis 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docs. 3, 8.) 23 On February 2, 2009, the court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending that 24 Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and Plaintiff be required to pay the 25 $350.00 filing fee in full for this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff was 26 granted thirty days in which to file objections. (Id.) The thirty-day deadline passed, and Plaintiff 27 did not file objections or otherwise respond to the Findings and Recommendations. (Court Docket.) 28 On March 17, 2009, the Court issued an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations, and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee in full within thirty days, or the case would be dismissed. 2 (Doc. 16.) 3 On March 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 4 17.) On March 23, 2009, the court issued an order granting Plaintiff thirty days in which to file 5 objections. (Doc. 18.) On March 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 19.) 6 On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to pay the filing fee; 7 however, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee before the deadline expired. (Doc. 26.) On April 6, 8 2010, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. 9 (Doc. 28.) 10 On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, on the ground 11 that the Court did not consider his objections to the Findings and Recommendations of February 2, 12 2009. (Doc. 30.) On March 25, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in 13 part and referred the matter to the undersigned to consider Plaintiff’s objections and, if necessary, 14 submit supplemental findings and recommendations. (Doc. 32.) 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides: “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a 17 judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 18 occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the 19 United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 20 claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious 21 physical injury. 22 In the Findings and Recommendations entered on February 2, 2009, the court found that 23 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, had brought three prior actions 24 that were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted. (Doc. 15.) The court also found that Plaintiff did not allege facts that he was 26 under imminent danger of serious injury at the time the Complaint was filed. Id. Based on these 27 findings, the court recommended that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s applications to 28 proceed in forma pauperis should be denied, and Plaintiff should be directed to pay the $350.00 2 1 filing fee in full for this action. 2 In his objections filed on March 31, 2009, Plaintiff objected to the Findings and 3 Recommendations on the ground that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the 4 time he filed the Complaint. Plaintiff argued that he alleged sufficient facts in the Second Amended 5 Complaint (“SAC”) demonstrating that he was in imminent danger. Plaintiff claimed that he alleged 6 in the SAC that he was suffering from a chronic disease in the form of a bodily infection that has 7 inflicted death in numerous previous cases, and that defendants at Pleasant Valley State Prison did 8 provide adequate medical treatment. 9 Plaintiff’s arguments are without merit. First, the allegations in the SAC are irrelevant, 10 because Plaintiff has not filed a SAC. On April 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a SAC, but 11 on August 2, 2007, the court denied the motion. (Docs. 10, 11.) On August 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed 12 a motion for the court to review his proposed SAC, but on March 27, 2008, the court denied the 13 motion. (Docs. 13, 14.) Plaintiff’s SAC was never filed. Therefore, this case proceeds on Plaintiff’s 14 First Amended Complaint, filed on December 7, 2006. (Doc. 5.) 15 Second, neither Plaintiff’s original Complaint (“Complaint”) nor his First Amended 16 Complaint (“FAC”) alleged facts demonstrating Plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious 17 injury at the time the Complaint was filed. In determining whether a plaintiff qualifies for the 18 “imminent danger” exception, the court look to the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 19 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). The issue under § 1915(g) is “whether the complaint, as a whole, alleges 20 imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and 21 FAC before issuing the Findings and Recommendations. Now, in consideration of Plaintiff’s 22 objections, the Court has conducted another review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and FAC and finds only 23 vague and conclusory language complaining about serious medical and dental needs and the duty of 24 defendants to diagnose and implement treatment. Plaintiff did not make any plausible allegation that 25 he faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. Id. at 1055. 26 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 27 Based on the foregoing, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s objections as discussed above, the 28 undersigned finds it unnecessary to supplement the Findings and Recommendations entered on 3 1 March 31, 2009. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to 2 vacate the dismissal of this action be DENIED. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections 6 with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 7 and Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court 8 days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 9 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's 10 order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij August 24, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
