Chappell v. Gerber

Full title: REX CHAPPELL, Plaintiff, v. GERBER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 16, 2013

1:12-cv-01767-RRB (E.D. Cal. May. 16, 2013)

Opinion

REX CHAPPELL, Plaintiff, v. GERBER, et al., Defendants. No. 1:12-cv-01767-RRB United States District Court, E.D. California. May 16, 2013

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and ORDER RE MOTION AT DOCKET 10

RALPH R. BEISTLINE, District Judge.

Rex Chappell, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Chappell also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.¹ Chappell is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), incarcerated at the California State Prison, Corcoran ("CSP-C"). This action arises out of incidents that occurred while Chappell was incarcerated at the California Correctional Institute, Tehachapi ("CCI").²

1 Dkt. 10.

2 In addition to C/O Gerber, Chappell has named as defendants C/O R. Morales; Sgt. B. Werdetz; Capt. P. Matzen; C/O Wartz; Lt. T. Harris; Warden (A) K. Holland; Dr. M. Vu; Dr. Tate; Dr. S. Shiesha; and A. Joaquin, CMO.

I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

This Court granted Chappell leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ³ Further review of the file indicates that the Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis was improvidently entered. The Application to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete: it did not include the required certification of the amounts held for the benefit of Chappell by CDCR.⁴

3 Dkt. 9.

4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

Perhaps more importantly, however, attached to the Complaint is a copy of a letter written by Chappell to K. Holland, Warden (A), of CCI. In that letter, Chappell states: "The reason I am here and not Pelican Bay SHU or Corcoran SHU, is because I won $255,000 from Pelican supposed professionals.' Then turned around and settle [ sic ] for $10,000, then $86,500. Then $30,000 at Corcoran, then $23,000 settlement."⁵ Accordingly, it appears that Chappell has the financial ability to pay the filing fee in full.⁶

5 Dkt. 1 at 58 (internal quotation marks omitted).

6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) ("allegation of poverty is untrue").

II. MOTION FOR TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

In his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Chappel seeks relief against the Defendants. Because he has been transferred from CCI to CSP-C, Chappell's request for injunctive relief against the staff and medical personnel at CCI has been rendered moot.

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. On or before June 21, 2013, Plaintiff must show cause why the Order granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis should not be vacated; and

2. The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction at Docket 10 is DENIED as moot.