(PC) LaGrone v. Coultas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK S. LAGRONE, JR., Case No. 1:22-cv-00725-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 COULTAS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 15 Defendant. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED 16 (ECF No. 2) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Mark S. LaGrone, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 20 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Plaintiff initiated this action on May 19, 2022, together with a motion to proceed in forma 22 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District 23 Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) This action was transferred to the 24 Fresno Division on June 15, 2022. (ECF No. 5.) On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a certified 25 copy of his prison trust account statement. (ECF No. 8.) 26 Examination of Plaintiff’s trust account statement reveals that Plaintiff is able to afford the 27 costs of this action. Specifically, Plaintiff’s current available balance in his inmate trust account 28 is $2,931.28. (ECF No. 8, p. 1.) 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 2 District Judge to this action. 3 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED; and 5 2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $402.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this 6 action. 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 10 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 13 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 14 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: June 16, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28