(PC) Ruiz v. Ehlers

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMarch 15, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00146
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Ruiz v. Ehlers ((PC) Ruiz v. Ehlers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Ruiz v. Ehlers, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, Case No. 2:21-cv-00146-JAM-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 12 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULDN’T BE DENIED BECAUSE OF 13 R. EHLERS, HIS STATUS AS A “THREE-STRIKER” 14 Defendant. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 15 16 17 Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 18 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. ECF No. 2. No prisoner may proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action if they have 20 previously had three actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had three cases dismissed for failure to state a claim or as 22 frivolous: 23 (1) Ruiz v. Curry, No. 1:17-cv-1407-DAD-SKO at ECF No. 35 (failure to state a claim); 24 (2) Ruiz v. Curry, No. 1:17-cv-1454-DAD-SAB at ECF No. 19 (failure to state a claim); 25 (3) Ruiz v. Curry, No. 19-16456, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35092 (9th Cir. 2019) (appeal 26 dismissed as frivolous). 27 Plaintiff would still be entitled to proceed in forma pauperis if his complaint alleged that 28 1 | he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It does not. Plaintiff 2 | names one defendant, a correctional officer named R. Ehlers. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that, 3 | on October 21, 2020, Ehlers violated his rights by overtightening his restraints. 7d. at 3. Plaintiff 4 | also claims Ehlers retaliated against him for filing grievances by forcing him to walk while 5 | injured. Jd. These allegations, grounded entirely in the past, do not establish that plaintiff is in 6 | imminent danger of serious physical injury. 7 Within thirty days, plaintiff should respond to this order and show why, in spite of his 8 | “three-striker” status, he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. Alternatively, he may 9 | discharge this order by submitting the 402 dollar filing fee. If plaintiff's response does not 10 | adequately justify being allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, I will recommend that his 11 | application be denied. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ March 15, 2021 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 1915
21 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
Proceedings in forma pauperis
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Ruiz v. Ehlers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-ruiz-v-ehlers-caed-2021.