Harris v. Rios et al

Filing 62

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Denying As Moot Defendants Motion To Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status And To Dismiss Case (ECF No. 57 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/14/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/2/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,

CASE NO.

1:09-CV-00781-AWI-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND TO
DISMISS CASE

11
12

v.

13
H.A. RIOS, et al.,

(ECF No. 57)

14
Defendants.
15
/
16
17

Plaintiff Donte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

19

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second

20

Amended Complaint against Defendants Gonzaga, Cobb, Zaragoza, and Valero for

21

interfering with incoming mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment;

22

against Defendant Cobb for interfering with outgoing mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights

23

under the First Amendment; and against Defendants Estrada, Cobb, Valero, and Zaragoza

24

for violating Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in connection with

25

Plaintiff’s mail.

26

In lieu of an answer, on March 21, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to revoke

27

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss the case (Motion to Revoke and Dismiss,

28

ECF No. 57) on grounds Plaintiff is a “three strikes” litigant, i.e., has brought three or more

1

prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim

2

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3
4

On April 19, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty day extension of
time to pay the filing fee. (Order Granting Extension, ECF No. 60.)

5
6

On May 3, 2012, Plaintiff paid in full the $350 filing fee. (Receipt No.
CAE100018795.)

7

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Revoke and Dismiss is moot. It

8

is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Revoke and Dismiss (ECF No.

9

57) be DENIED as moot.

10

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

11

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

12

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

13

any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such

14

a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

15

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days

16

after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

17

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst,

18

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:
ci4d6

July 14, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-