From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Evans

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 23, 2009
No. CIV S-09-3067 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009)

Summary

In Williams v. Evans, 2009 WL 1460832 (E.D. Cal. 2009), the Honorable Lawrence O'Neill rejected a claim challenging California Penal Code § 186.22 as unconstitutionally vague.

Summary of this case from Lee v. Gipson

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-3067 GGH P.

November 23, 2009


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $8.46 will be assessed by this order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $8.46. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Evans, Purit, Bush.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 3 USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed October 29, 2009.

5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;
b. One completed summons;
c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3 above; and
d. Four copies of the endorsed complaint filed October 29, 2009.

6. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed ____________________:

_____ completed summons form _____ completed USM-285 forms _____ copies of the _______________ Complaint/Amended Complaint DATED: ______________________________ Plaintiff


Summaries of

Williams v. Evans

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 23, 2009
No. CIV S-09-3067 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009)

In Williams v. Evans, 2009 WL 1460832 (E.D. Cal. 2009), the Honorable Lawrence O'Neill rejected a claim challenging California Penal Code § 186.22 as unconstitutionally vague.

Summary of this case from Lee v. Gipson
Case details for

Williams v. Evans

Case Details

Full title:DONALD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. M.S. EVANS, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Nov 23, 2009

Citations

No. CIV S-09-3067 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009)

Citing Cases

Maiden v. Ducart

We would note for his benefit that the Eastern District of California has rejected challenges to section…

People v. Maiden

We would note for his benefit that the Eastern District of California has rejected challenges to section…