(PC) Caetano v. California Department of Corrections ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, Case No.: 1:23-cv-1503 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., (Doc. 9) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Nathaniel Caetano seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, which seeks to 19 impose liability for violations of his civil rights. (Docs. 1, 2.) This matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff is subject to the three-strikes bar of 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(g), after identifying the following cases that were dismissed prior to the filing of this action, 23 for failure to state a claim or as frivolous: 24 1. Caetano v. Kings County Sheriff, et al., 1:22-cv-222-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed March 18, 2022, as frivolous and for failure to state a 25 claim); 26 2. Caetano v. Kings County Sheriff, et al., 1:22-cv-261-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed April 28, 2022, as frivolous); 27 3. Caetano v. Depository Trust Company, et al., 1:22-cv-679-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.) 1 4. Caetano v. Board of State and Community Corrections, et al., 1:22-cv-687-JLT- SKO (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed May 30, 2023, for failure to state a claim); and 5. Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service, et al., 1:22-cv-837-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.) 3 (dismissed June 20, 2023, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim). 4 | (Doc. 9 at 2.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff fails to show he was in imminent danger 5 | of serious physical injury, such that an exception to Section 1915 applies. (/d. at 2-4.) Therefore, 6 | the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and 7 | that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee. (/d. at 4.) 8 On November 27, 2023, the Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff 9 | and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 9 at 4.) The Court advised 10 | him that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 11 appeal. Ud. at 4-5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. 12 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file any objections to the 13 | Findings and Recommendations, and the time to do so expired. 14 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 15 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 16 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 27, 2023 (Doc. 9) are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 20 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $402 filing fee in full for this action within 30 days of 1 the date of service of this order. 22 4. Plaintiff’s is advised the failure to comply with this order will result in 23 dismissal of this action. 24 35 IT IS SO ORDERED. %6 Dated: _ December 21, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28