(PC) Hammler v. Burns ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 1:20-cv-00489-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MR. J. BURNS, et al., (Doc. No. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show cause within 21 fourteen (14) days why this case should not be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing 22 fee. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff filed a response on April 27, 2020. (Doc. No. 4.) On April 30, 2020, 23 the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 24 dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and 25 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within 26 fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 4.) On June 30, 2020, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff thirty (30) 27 days from the date of service of that order to file objections to the pending findings and 28 recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff filed objections on July 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 13.) wOAOe 4: □□□ □□□ AEE SEAR MU, i PI Oe PAY ee 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 | including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 4 | by the record and by proper analysis. 5 In plaintiffs objections, he reiterates that his mental health assessment dated December 3, 6 | 2018 recommended that defendant Munoz not take plaintiffs television away, as this could cause 7 | plaintiff to mentally decline and subject him to physical danger. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Plaintiff 8 || notes that this opinion came from a licensed psychologist. Ud. at 3.) Plaintiff's objections still do 9 | not, however, suggest that he was in imminent danger when he initiated this action. See Andrews 10 || v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “the availability of the [imminent- 11 || danger] exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not 12 || at some earlier or later time”). Thus, plaintiff's objections provide no basis to question the 13 | magistrate judge’s analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The April 30, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6) are adopted in 16 full; 17 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee; and 18 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ August 14, 2020 Yole A Lange 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28