Wilson v. California State Prison Corcoran et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/17/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID W. WILSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:18-cv-00424-DAD-JDP

v.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON
CORCORAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. Nos. 2, 3)

17
Plaintiff David W. Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18
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.
On April 2, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21
22

recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(g) be denied and that plaintiff be required to submit the required $400.00 filing fee for this

24

action in full within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 3.) On April 14, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to

25

those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 4.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

26
27

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including

28

/////
1

1

plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the

2

record and by proper analysis.

3

In his objections, plaintiff contends that he is in imminent danger of serious physical

4

injury, which would permit him to proceed in forma pauperis despite having suffered three prior

5

strike dismissals. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In support of this argument, however, plaintiff merely

6

restates the allegations of his complaint concerning retaliation and the failure of prison staff to

7

accommodate his medical conditions. The assigned magistrate judge previously found that these

8

alleged conditions, even if true, do not rise to the level of imminent danger of serious physical

9

injury sufficient to qualify for the exception under § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 3 at 3.) The undersigned

10

concurs with this analysis and conclusion.

11

Accordingly,

12

1.

13

The findings and recommendations issued April 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted
in full;

14

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied;

15

3.

Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to

16
17

pay in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action;
4.

18
19

of this action without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the filing fee; and
5.

20
21
22

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:

July 17, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2