Quiroga v. Youngblood et al

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting 12 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Request 2 Proceed IFP, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/28/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA, III,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-00859-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff,
v.
DONNY YOUNGBLOOD and KERN
COUNTY SHERIFF'S ENTITY,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
(Docs. No. 2, 12)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga, III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On July 17, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 12.)

24

The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections

25

thereto were due within twenty-one days. (Id.) On July 27, 2017, plaintiff filed timely

26

objections. (Doc. No. 13.)

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
1

1

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

2

by proper analysis. As the magistrate judge correctly concluded, plaintiff has on at least three

3

prior occasions,1 brought an action that was dismissed on grounds that he failed to state a claim

4

upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s objections to the findings

5

and recommendations are general in nature and fail to address the dismissals of his prior actions.

6

Nor do plaintiff’s objections demonstrate the existence of circumstances amounting to an

7

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this action. See Andrews v.

8

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).

9

Accordingly:

10

1. The July 17, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 12) are adopted in full;

11

2. Within twenty-one days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay in full

12

the $400.00 filing fee for this action; and
3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

September 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

See Quiroga v. King, 1:15-cv-01697-AWI-MJS, ECF No. 38 (Feb. 8, 2017) (dismissing action
with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim); Quiroga v. Food Service, 1:15-cv-01203EPG, ECF No. 24 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016) (dismissing action for failure to state a cognizable
claim); Quiroga v. Aguilara, No. 1:15-cv-01202-LJO-MJS, ECF No. 23 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18,
2016) (dismissing action with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim).
2