(PC) Bradford v. Gobert ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, No. 2:21-cv-02373-DAD-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JONATHAN GOBERT, et al., (Doc. Nos. 2, 7) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 10, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied 22 because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the 23 allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” 24 exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 7) (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051−55 (9th 25 Cir. 2007)). The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff be ordered to pay the required 26 $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (Id. at 6.) The findings and 27 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 28 ///// 1 | to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud.) To date, no objections to those findings 2 | and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 4 | conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 | undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 6 | proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 10, 2023 (Doc. No. 7) are 9 adopted; 10 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 11 3. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay 12 the $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 13 4. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time 14 will result in the dismissal of this action; 15 5. To the extent that plaintiff's complaint might be construed as presenting a motion 16 for a temporary restraining order, motion for a preliminary injunction, and a 17 motion for an “ad litem guardianship appointment of counsel,” (Doc. No. 1 at 1, 18 7-8), those motions are denied without prejudice as premature because plaintiff 19 has not yet paid the required filing fee to proceed with this action; and 20 6. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 21 proceedings consistent with this order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ September 12, 2023 Da A. 2, axel 24 DALE A. DROZD 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28