Barrett v. Cate et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Plaintiff's 7 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED; Objections, if any, due in 30 Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/30/2009. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 12/2/2009. (Bradley, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Robert E. Barrett ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on October 5, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On October 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a copy of his prison trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 7.) Examination of Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis reveals that Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this action. Specifically, Plaintiff's account statement reflects a balance of $694.13 on October 2, 2009, and according to prison records, the average balance in the account for the most recent 6-month period was $456.43. (Doc. 7 at 3, 5.) The filing fee for this action is $350.00. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; and Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full. 1 v. M. CATE, et al., Defendants. / ROBERT E. BARRETT, Plaintiff, 1:09-cv-01741-LJO-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED (Doc. 7.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

October 30, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2