Patterson v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al
Filing
13
ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/18/18. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VESTER L. PATTERSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
No. 1:17-cv-01428-DAD-BAM
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
(Doc. Nos. 2, 6)
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff Vester L. Patterson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
19
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
20
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On October 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
22
(Doc. No. 2.) On October 30, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
23
recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
24
1915(g) because he had suffered three prior strike dismissals, and that plaintiff be required to pay
25
the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and
26
recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were
27
to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 3.) After seeking and receiving two
28
extensions of time in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. Nos. 7,
1
1
2
8, 10, 11), plaintiff did so on February 8, 2018. (Doc. No. 12.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has
3
conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including
4
plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the
5
record and by proper analysis.
6
In his objections, plaintiff contends that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
7
injury, which would permit him to proceed in forma pauperis despite having three strikes against
8
him. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In support of this argument, however, plaintiff merely restates the
9
allegations of his complaint that he is suffering from a bleeding nose, loss of appetite, and fatigue.
10
(Doc. No. 1 at 4; Doc. No. 12 at 2.) The assigned magistrate judge previously found that these
11
alleged conditions, even if true, do not rise to the level of imminent danger. (Doc. No. 6 at 2.)
12
The undersigned concurs with this analysis.
13
Accordingly,
14
1.
15
The findings and recommendations issued October 30, 2017 (Doc. No. 6) are
adopted in full;
16
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied;
17
3.
Within twenty-one days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required
18
19
to pay in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action;
4.
20
21
of this action without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the filing fee; and
5.
22
23
24
Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal
The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 18, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?