(PC) Maldonado v. Mule Creek State Prison ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY RAY SHANEE MALDONADO, No. 2:23-cv-02008-DAD-SCR (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 9, 11) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Billy Ray Shanee Maldonado is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 16, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9) be denied 23 because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the 24 allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” 25 exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 11 at 2–4) (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 26 1051−55 (9th Cir. 2007)). The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff be ordered to 27 pay the required $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 11 at 4.) 28 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 1 | objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. Ud.) On September 2 | 4, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) 3 Plaintiffs two-page objections are difficult to decipher, and the court is unable to discern 4 || on what basis plaintiff objects to the pending findings and recommendations.! (/d.) Plaintiff 5 | simply does not articulate any basis upon which the findings and recommendations should be 6 | rejected. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 8 | conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 9 | undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 10 | proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 16, 2024 (Doc. No. 11) are 13 adopted; 14 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9) is denied; 15 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 16 $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 17 4. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time 18 will result in the dismissal of this action; and 19 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 20 proceedings consistent with this order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 6, 2024 Dal A. 2, Arye 23 DALE A. DROZD 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 ' Therein, plaintiff states that the assigned magistrate judge “run[s] with the devil,” should 28 | “remove [him]self from office,” and “should keep [his] laws to [him]self.” (Doc. No. 12 at 1-2.)