(PC) Harris v. Cisneros ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN HARRIS, Case No. 1:22-cv-0721 JLT HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 THERESA CISNEROS, FICHES, JOHN DOE, CHARLES RETTIG, STEVEN (Docs. 2, 9) 15 MUNCHIN, and QUELITA S. BOURGEOLE, 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 Marvin Harris initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a civil rights complaint 20 against Theresa Cisneros, Fiches, John Doe, Charles Rettig, Steven Munchin, and Quelita S. 21 Bourgeole and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on June 14, 2022. (Docs. 1, 2.) 22 The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 23 IFP be denied because Plaintiff has at least three cases dismissed that qualify as a strike under 24 Ninth Circuit caselaw prior to filing his lawsuit on December 27, 2021. (Doc. 9 at 5-6.) 25 Therefore, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(g). (Id.) The magistrate judge also found the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint do not 27 satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to Section 1915(g), even when 28 liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint. (Id. at 6.) 1 The Findings and Recommendations served on Plaintiff contained a notice that any 2 | objections to the were due within fourteen days. (Doc. 9 at 6.) Plaintiff was also “‘advised that 3 | failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 4 | Ud. at 6-7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 5 | 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff has not filed an objection, and the time to do so 6 | has expired. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review. Having 8 | carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 9 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 29, 2022 (Doc. 9) are 11 ADOPTED in full. 12 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. 13 3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay in full 14 the $402.00 filing fee if he wishes to proceed with his action. 15 4. Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result 16 in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _July 22, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28