(PC) Young v. Newsom ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZURI SANAKABISA YOUNG, et al., No. 2:23-cv-00092-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 9, 20) 16 17 Plaintiff Zuri Sanakabisa Young 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 April 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9) 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. 20); see 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 1.) 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. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to 2 the pending findings and recommendations on April 20, 2023. (Doc. No. 21.) 3 In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff contends without 4 any basis that the assigned magistrate judge is biased, engaged in embezzlement, judicial 5 misconduct, and corruption. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff’s accusations in this regard are not 6 appropriate, and the undersigned will disregard them. In addition, plaintiff contests that he has 7 accumulated at least three prior strike dismissals, enough to be barred by the “three strikes” 8 provision, but he does so by arguing in conclusory fashion that he has “always stated cognizable 9 meritorious claims.” (Id. at 2.) Notwithstanding plaintiff’s belief, the undersigned has reviewed 10 the dismissal orders relied upon in the pending findings and recommendation and has confirmed 11 that plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under § 1915(g). Accordingly, plaintiff’s 12 objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 14 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 15 plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 16 supported by the record and proper analysis. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 20) are 19 adopted; 20 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9) is denied; 21 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 22 $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 23 4. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time 24 will result in the dismissal of this action; and 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 2 proceedings consistent with this order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ July 22, 2023 Dal A. 2, el 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28