(PC) Love v. Shaffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORRIS LEE LOVE, 1:21-cv-01380-GSA-PC 12 ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY 13 Plaintiff, ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CASE 14 vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 15 SHAFFER, et al., RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 Defendants. PAUPERIS BE DENIED (ECF No. 2.) 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 18 19 20 I. FINDINGS 21 Morris Lee Love (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 22 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 23 commencing this action together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 25 In his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff reports that he has $8,000.00 cash. 26 (ECF No. 2 at 2 ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff can afford the $402.00 filing fee. 27 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied and Plaintiff 28 required to pay the statutory filing fee of $402.00 for this action in full. 1 II. ORDER, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION 2 The Clerk is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this case; 3 and 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on September 15, 2021, be 6 DENIED; and 7 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action in full. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 10 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 11 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 12 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 13 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 14 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: September 20, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28