Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying 14 Motion to Revoke in Forma Pauperis Status, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/8/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISAAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA (PC)

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION TO REVOKE IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS

CDCR, et al.,

15

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 14, 19)

16
17

Plaintiff Isaac Da’Bour Dawson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 1, 6.) The matter

20

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

21

Rule 302.
On June 15, 2016, defendants Gonzalez, Guzman, Johnson, and Sheldon filed a motion to

22
23

revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 14.) On July

24

25, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that

25

defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 19.) On August

26

22, 2016, defendants filed objections to those findings and recommendations and a request for

27

judicial notice. (Doc. Nos. 21, 22.)

28

/////
1

1

In their objections to the findings and recommendations, defendants argue that the

2

magistrate judge mistakenly determined that the prior dismissal of one of plaintiff’s previous

3

lawsuits, Dawson v. Sacramento County Jail, No. 2:12-cv-00963-JAM-GGH (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10,

4

2012), did not count as a strike, even though the underlying reason for that dismissal was

5

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 21 at 1.)

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

7

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

8

including defendants’ objections and request for judicial notice, the court finds the findings and

9

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The magistrate judge

10

properly concluded that the dismissal without prejudice in Dawson v. Sacramento County Jail

11

was based upon plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his address and that dismissal

12

without prejudice on that basis did not support an inference that plaintiff could not state a

13

cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 19 at 3–4.)

14
15
16
17
18
19

Accordingly,
1) The findings and recommendations filed July 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 19), are adopted in full;
and
2) Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 14) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 8, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2