(PC) Maldonado v. State of CA ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BILLY RAE SHANEE MALDONADO, Case No. 2:21-cv-02172-KJM-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 11 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED AND HE BE DIRECTED TO 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., TENDER THE FILING FEE IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION 13 Defendants. ECF No. 2 14 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 15 OBJECTIONS 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff previously filed a complaint, ECF No. 1, and a request to proceed in forma 20 pauperis, ECF No. 2. After reviewing his litigation history, I concluded that he was a “three- 21 striker” within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).1 ECF No. 6. I also found that his 22 23 1 Plaintiff has filed at least three cases that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim: 24 (1) Maldonado v. Yates, No. 1:11-cv-01735-LJO-GSA (E.D. Cal. 2013); 25 (2) Maldonado v. Trimble, No. 1:11-cv-02160-LJO-DLB (E.D. Cal. 2013); and 26 (3) Maldonado v. Yates, No. 1:11-cv-01885-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2014). 27 I note that Judge Nunley recently adopted recommendations denying plaintiff’s 28 application to proceed in forma pauperis based on these three cases. See Maldonado v. Kebler, 1 | complaint, which was largely illegible, did not make a showing of imminent danger of serious 2 | physical injury. /d. I offered plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint and explain why he 3 | met the exception. /d. Plaintiff filed a reply declining my offer and stating his desire to stand by 4 | his original complaint. ECF No. 7. Accordingly, [RECOMMEND that: 5 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, be DENIED. 6 2. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $405 dollar filing fee within twenty-one days of any 7 | order adopting these recommendations to proceed with this action. 8 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 9 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 10 | Eastern District of California. Plaintiff may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 11 | recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 12 | That document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 | Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 14 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 15 | waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( q oy — Dated: _ May 10, 2022 q_-—_— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. 2:21-cv-1243-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. 2021) at ECF Nos. 8 & 11. 28