(PC) Robinson v. Curry ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN HARRIS, No. 1:21-cv-01452-DAD-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CURRY, et MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA al., PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 2, 4) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Marvin Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 5, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied 23 because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the 24 allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” 25 exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 4) (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051−55 (9th 26 Cir. 2007)). The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff be ordered to pay the required 27 $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (Id. at 5.) The findings and 28 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 1 | to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the 2 | pending findings and recommendations on January 26, 2022. (Doc. No. 5.) 3 In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff neither contests 4 | that he has accumulated at least three prior strike dismissals, enough to be barred by the “three 5 || strikes” provision, nor contends that he qualifies for the exception under the provision for 6 || prisoners who face “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 7 | Rather, plaintiff merely states incoherently “stop send me your bias frivolous court orders Judge’s 8 | reason why.” (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) Thus, plaintiff □□□ not meaningfully objected to the pending 9 | findings and recommendations. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 11 | conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 12 | plaintiff's objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 13 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 5, 2022 (Doc. No. 4) are 16 adopted; 17 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 18 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 19 $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 20 4. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time 21 will result in the dismissal of this action; and 22 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 23 proceedings consistent with this order. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ January 28, 2022 al, A 4 7 ae 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28