Hendon v. Davey
ORDER ADOPTING 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP; and ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Pay the Filing Fee in Full Within Thirty (30) Days signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/10/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO PAY THE $400 FILING FEE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
(Doc. Nos. 2, 4)
Plaintiff Carlos Hendon is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 15, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations,
recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and plaintiff be
required to pay the $400 filing fee. (Doc. No. 4.) The findings and recommendations were
served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days.
(Id.) On May 24, 2017, and again on June 12, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
by proper analysis. In his objections, plaintiff contends in conclusory fashion that he will soon be
transferred back to Corcoran’s Security Housing Unit (“SHU”); however, plaintiff makes no
specific allegations supporting his claim in this regard. Plaintiff’s complaint relates to alleged
conditions of confinement in the Corcoran SHU in 2015, and plaintiff is presently confined at
California State Prison, Sacramento. Any claim that plaintiff will be returned to the Corcoran
SHU is speculative, at best. Such speculative allegations fall short of establishing “imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“[T]he availability of the exception turns on the conditions a prisoner faced at the time the
complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time.”). Indeed, plaintiff made these same
allegations in Hendon v. Davey, 2:17-cv-00169-KJN (PC), wherein the court rejected plaintiff’s
argument, denied in forma pauperis status, and dismissed his action on May 4, 2017, after
plaintiff had failed to pay the required filing fee.
1. The May 15, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 4) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; and
3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the required
$400 filing fee; and
4. Any failure on plaintiff’s part to pay the required filing fee within the time provided
by this order will result in the dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?