Christopher Lipsey, Jr. v. Depovic et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING 40 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 31 Defendants' Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Privilege, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/14/2021. Case Referred back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. 1:18-cv-00767-NONE-HBK (PC)

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA
PAUPERIS PRIVILEGE

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DEPOVIC, et al.,

(Doc. Nos. 31, 40)

Defendants.

16
17

On June 28, 2018, the then-assigned magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s application to

18

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. (Doc. No. 9.) Defendants then moved on April

19

13, 2020 to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status, arguing plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant barred from

20

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 31.) Plaintiff

21

filed an opposition to that motion, to which defendants filed a reply, followed by plaintiff’s sur-

22

reply. (Doc. Nos. 33, 34, 35.) On May 27, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge recommended

23

that the court deny defendants’ motion because defendants failed to identify three dismissal order

24

qualifying under the statute as strikes that plaintiff had accrued prior to filing the instant action.

25

(Doc. No. 40.) Defendants did not object to findings and recommendations, and the period to do

26

so has now passed. (See docket.)

27
28

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, the court finds the findings
1

1

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

2

Accordingly,

3

1. The findings and recommendations entered on May 27, 2021, (Doc. No. 40), are

4
5

adopted;
2. Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 31), is

6
7

denied;
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

8
9
10
11

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 14, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2