(PC) Hubbard v. Baughman

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ZANE HUBBARD, No. 2:19-cv-1482 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants.

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

20 Review of court records reveals that on at least three occasions lawsuits filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: 23 1. Hubbard v. Flores, No. 1:13-cv-01056 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed June 30, 2014 for failure to state a claim; no appeal filed).

25 2. Hubbard v. Mendes, No. 1:13-cv-01078 LJO MJS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed March 17, 2014, for failure to state a claim; no appeal filed).

27 3. Hubbard v. Corcoran State Prison, No. 1:13-cv-1511 AWI MJS (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on April 24, 2015, for failure to state a claim; no appeal filed).

1 4, Hubbard vy. Marchak, No. 1:14-cv-00274 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on June 4, | 2015, for failure to state a claim, no appeal filed).

3 5. Hubbard v. Lua, No. 1:14-cv-00351 LJO SAB (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed May 6, 2014, for | failure to state a claim; no appeal filed).

5 6. Hubbard v. Austin, No. 2:15-cv-2279 JAM CMK (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed August 11, | 2016, for failure to state a claim; no appeal filed).

7 All of the above cases constitute strikes that were final prior to the date plaintiff filed this | action. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 2011).

9 Plaintiff is therefore precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless | plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

11 Plaintiff sues the Warden, Associate Warden, Supervising Correctional Cook Vang, and || Food Manager McCullock at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”), and claims that | from 2016 to “current,” defendants Vang and McCullock served contaminated food, as well as a | shortage of food, to inmates housed in administrative segregation, and states that on November 15 18, 2017, plaintiff was admitted to the hospital emergency room for food poisoning. (ECF No. | | at3,4.) However, plaintiff is no longer housed at CSP-SAC. Rather, at the time he filed this | action on July 19, 2019, plaintiff was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison. The allegations in | plaintiff's complaint do not suggest that plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical || injury at the time he filed the instant action. Thus, plaintiff must submit the appropriate filing fee | in order to proceed with this action.

21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit, | within twenty-one days from the date of this order, the appropriate filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure to || comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

24 | Dated: September 26, 2019 Foci) Aharon | ubbi4so.1915e UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE