Pierce v. U.S. Congress
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER ADOPTING 8 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; and ORDER DENYING 16 Plaintiff's Request signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/2016. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SEAVON PIERCE,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. CONGRESS,
Defendant.
No. 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST
16
(Doc. Nos. 2, 4, 8, 16)
17
FILING FEE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS
18
19
Plaintiff Seavon Pierce is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil action. This 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 September 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
22
recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied
23
because he has suffered three or more dismissals constituting strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
24
and does not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under the imminent danger exception. (Doc.
25
No. 4.) On September 26, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations.
26
(Doc. No. 5.) Based on new arguments raised by plaintiff therein, the assigned magistrate judge
27
issued supplemental findings and recommendations, again recommending that plaintiff’s motion
28
to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 8.) On October 17, 2016, plaintiff again filed
1
1
objections. (Doc. No. 9.) On November 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a request with this court, again
2
challenging the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and alternatively
3
requesting that this court set the filing fee in connection with this civil rights action at $5.00.
4
(Doc. No. 16.)
5
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
6
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
7
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by
8
proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit for the reasons stated by the magistrate
9
judge.
10
Accordingly,
11
1. The September 13, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 4) and the
12
September 30, 2016 supplemental findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 8) are
13
adopted in full;
14
2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied;
15
3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of the date
16
of this order;
17
4. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the action will be dismissed; and
18
5. Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 16) is denied as having been rendered moot by this order.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 23, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?