(PC) Williams v. Vera ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, No. 1:22-cv-00096-ADA-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. No. 9) 14 N. VERA, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 15 Defendants. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 (Doc. No. 11) 17 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in this action. The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On January 26, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff not be allowed proceed in forma pauperis and that 24 Plaintiff be directed to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full if he wants to proceed with this action. 25 (Doc. No. 9 at 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained 26 notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) On January 31, 2022, 27 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 11.) Following an 28 extension of time, on April 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. No. 15.) 1 Upon review of Plaintiff’s objections, the court finds no basis to overturn the findings and 2 recommendations. Plaintiff stated that the issues raised in the complaint of the instant case were 3 initially raised in the complaint for Williams v. Corcoran State Prison, E.D. CA, Case No. 1:21- 4 cv-01009. (Doc. No. 15 at 1.) The case is distinguishable from the instant case and does not 5 support that Plaintiff’s complaint falls within the imminent danger exception of the three-strikes 6 rule. Furthermore, Plaintiff cited to Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010), 7 to argue that when a prisoner gives his pleading to a prison authority to mail to court, the court 8 deems such petition as filed on the date it was signed. (Doc. No. 15 at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s complaint 9 was signed and dated on September 29, 2021, which is around five (5) months since the dates of 10 Plaintiff’s allegations, April 28, 2021 through May 4, 2021. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.) Accordingly, 11 Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes rule, and 12 the court finds Plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive to overturn the findings and recommendations. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 14 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 15 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 16 analysis. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 26, 2022, (Doc. No. 9), are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff is not allowed to proceed in forma 21 pauperis in this action; 22 3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 11), is denied; 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 4. If Plaintiff wants to proceed with this action, Plaintiff shall pay the $402 filing fee 2 in full within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. If Plaintiff fails 3 to pay the filing fee in full within thirty (30) days, this action will be dismissed 4 without prejudice and without further notice. 5 6 7 | ITISSO ORDERED. 8 Dated: _ September 13, 2022 9 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28