(PC) Williams v. Ramadan ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01760-JLT-BAK-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING 14 RAMADAN, et al., ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. (Docs. 2, 5) 16 Clerk of Court to close the case. 17 18 Antonio Luis Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge1 pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 14, 2021, the Court issued findings and recommendations to deny 22 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 5.) The Court took judicial notice of 23 three cases: 24 (1) Williams v. Wunderlich, Case No. 06-cv-1097 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2006); 25 (2) Williams v. Hagar, Case No. 04-CV-2543 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2004); and 26 (3) Williams v. McGrath, Case No. 04-CV-0782-CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2004). 27 1 || Each of these cases was dismissed for failure to state a claim and constituted a “strike” under 28 2 | U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court further determined that Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint did 3 || not show that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that he filed 4 || the complaint. 5 Plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff 6 || argues that the Court did not read or screen the complaint or liberally construe the complaint as 7 || true. Plaintiff argues that the three strikes provision does not apply when a prisoner is in imminent 8 | danger of serious physical injury and that future injury is enough to invoke the imminent danger 9 || exception. (/d. at 2.) Contrary to this assertion, the danger must be real, present, and/or ongoing. 10 || See Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055. More significantly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the 11 || imminent danger exception applies and that he should be allowed to proceed IFP. Accordingly, 12 || the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 14, 2021, (Doc. 5), are 14 WITHDRAWN’; 15 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), is DENIED; and 16 3. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to refile upon 17 prepayment of the filing fee. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _January 25, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 > The findings and recommendations are withdrawn due to the elevation of the undersigned to Article III status and the reassignment of the case to the undersigned in the new role. (See Doc. 9.)