Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 52

ORDER adopting 48 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 14 , 24 , 27 , 31 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/26/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
JEREMY PINSON,

Case No. 1:13-cv-1821-AWI-MJS (PC)

6
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO:

7
v.
8
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

(1) GRANT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE;

9
Defendants.

(2) DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS;

10
11

(3) DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS;

12

(4) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
DECLARE 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL;

13
14

(5) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
STAY COLLECTION OF FILING FEES;
AND

15
16

18

(6) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPORTION FILING FEES AMONG COPLAINTIFFS;

19

(ECF Nos. 14, 24, 27, 31, 48)

20

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

17

21
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
22
Privacy Act and civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
23
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States
24
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
25
On
26
27
28

February

23,

2015,

the

Magistrate

Judge

issued

findings

and

recommendations to (1) grant Defendant Bureau of Prisons’ request for judicial notice,
(2) deny Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, (3) deny

1 Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (4) deny Plaintiff’s motions to
2 declare 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unconstitutional, (5) deny Plaintiff’s motions to stay
3 collection of filing fees, and (6) deny Plaintiff’s motion to apportion filing fees among co4 plaintiffs. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff objected to the recommendation to deny his motions to
5 stay collection of filings fees “on the basis of the legal arguments presented in the
6 original motions.” (ECF No. 50.) Defendant filed no objections.
7

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has

8 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
9 Court finds the February 23, 2015 findings and recommendations to be supported by
10 the record and by proper analysis.
11
12
13

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed February 23,
2015 (ECF No. 48), in full;

14

2. Defendant’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED;

15

3. Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No.

16

24) is DENIED;

17

4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is DENIED;

18

5. Plaintiff’s motions to declare 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unconstitutional (ECF

19
20
21
22
23

Nos. 27 & 31) are DENIED as moot;
6. Plaintiff’s motions to stay collection of filing fees (ECF Nos. 14 & 31) are
DENIED; and
7. Plaintiff’s motion to apportion filing fees among co-plaintiffs (ECF No. 31)
is DENIED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: March 26, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2