-EFB (PC)Shields v. Foston et al, No. 2:2011cv00015 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/20/2011 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 7 application to proceed ifp be denied; pltf be directed to pay the $350.00 filing fee w/in 30 days; and pltf be admonished that his failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days.(Yin, K)

Download PDF
-EFB (PC)Shields v. Foston et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 REMON SHIELDS, Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-11-0015 JAM EFB P D. FOSTON, et al., Defendants. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 16 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This 18 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons explained below, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated he is 19 20 eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis, if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds 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 physical injury. 21 22 23 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It appears that on at least three prior occasions, plaintiff brought actions 25 while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim 26 upon //// Dockets.Justia.com 1 which relief may be granted.1 See Shields v. Pliler, No. 2:02-cv-01150 GEB JFM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2 7, 2003) (order dismissing case for failure to state a claim); Shields v. Alameida, No. 2:03-cv- 3 00808 AHM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2003) (order dismissing case for failure to state a claim); 4 Shields v. CDCA, No. 2:02-cv-00542 WBS JFM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2002) (order dismissing 5 case for failure to state a claim). 6 Further, it does not appear that plaintiff was under imminent threat of serious physical 7 injury when he filed the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 8 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007). The complaint alleges that plaintiff, a Muslim inmate, is being 9 denied overnight family visits, and therefore cannot consummate his marriage as required by his 10 religion. See Dckt. No. 1. The nature of plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that he 11 suffered from imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. 12 Thus, the imminent danger exception does not apply. 13 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s January 28, 2011 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; 15 2. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $350 filing fee within 30 days; and 16 3. Plaintiff be admonished that his failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. 17 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 //// 24 //// 25 1 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: April 20, 2011. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.