(PC) Dupree, Jr. v. Horn ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD JOSE DUPREE, JR., ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0086 JLT GSA (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN ) THIRTY DAYS 14 HORN, et al., ) ) (Doc. 8) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Richard Jose Dupree, Jr. initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint in the Central 18 District of California. (Doc. 1.) At that time, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or seek to leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) After the action was transferred to the Eastern District Court, the 20 matter was referred to the assigned United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 22 The magistrate judge determined Plaintiff had at least three cases dismissed that qualify as 23 strikes, so he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 8 at 4.) The 24 magistrate judge also found the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent 25 danger of serious physical injury” exception to Section 1915(g), even when liberally construing 26 Plaintiff’s complaint. (Id. at 4-6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge issued Findings and 27 Recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff be denied leave to proceed IFP and be directed to pay 28 the filing fee to proceed in this action. 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations were on Plaintiff and notified him that 2 || any objections were to be filed within 14 days (Doc. 8 at 6) and that the “failure to file objections 3 || within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” Ud. at 7, citing Wilkerson v. 4 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 5 Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. 6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 7 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 8 || supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 23, 2023 (Doc. 9) are adoptec 10 2. Plaintiff is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 11 3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay in full the 12 $402.00 filing fee if he wishes to proceed with his action. 13 4. Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in th 14 dismissal of this action without prejudice. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ March 31, 2023 ( LAW pA LU. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:23-cv-00086

Filed Date: 3/31/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024