Jesse Youngblood v. Overley

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying 2 8 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/01/2018. Twenty-One Day Deadline.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-01598-DAD-BAM

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

D. OVERLEY,

15

Defendant.
(Doc. Nos. 2, 4, 8)

16
17

Plaintiff Jesse L. Youngblood is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18
19

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

20

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

21

On December 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On

22

December 6, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28

24

U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No.4.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and

25

contained notice that objections thereto were due within thirty days. (Id. at 2–3.) Rather than

26

filing objections, on December 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal. (Doc.

27

No. 5.) On January 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.

28

No. 8.)
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.1

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6

The findings and recommendations issued on December 5, 2017 (Doc. No. 4) are
adopted in full;

7

2.

Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 2, 8) are denied; and

8

3.

Plaintiff is directed to pay the $400.00 filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of

9

service of this order. If plaintiff fails to pay the full filing fee as required within

10
11

the time specified in this order, this action will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

March 1, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

As noted, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal following the issuance of the findings and
recommendations. (Doc. No. 5.) However, a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
are not an appealable order. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372–73 (9th Cir. 1993). The
Ninth Circuit therefore issued an order holding that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal
and would not allow it to proceed. (Doc. No. 9.)
2