(PC) Harper v. CDCR ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL HARPER, No. 2:20-cv-1828 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 CDCR, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action. This proceeding 18 was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, on September 15, 20 2010, in Harper v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2:09-cv-1969 GEB 21 KJN P, the court found that plaintiff has “struck out” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Judgment 22 was final in that case well before this action was initiated. 23 Since plaintiff has struck out, he can no longer proceed in this court in forma pauperis 24 unless he alleges in his complaint that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 25 Id. That is not the case here. 26 In light of the foregoing, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s application to proceed 27 in forma pauperis be denied and plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee. 28 ///// WAU PLINY INES IGM Vee aye ee 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 2 | court judge to this case. 3 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 4 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and 5 2. Plaintiff be granted fourteen days within which to pay the $400 filing fee for this 6 || action. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 11 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 13 | (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: September 25, 2020 Gh rd □ | Gx 15 CAROLYN K DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 | , harp1828.3ks 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28