(PC) Goff v. Walters et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 45 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 43 Defendant's Motion Requesting an Order Revoking Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status; and ORDER VACATING 5 Order Granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/16/2020. Filing Fee due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS L. GOFF,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:18-cv-00904-DAD-JDP (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
S. WALTERS, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, REVOKING IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND
DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 43, 45)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Thomas L. Goff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a

21

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

22

On July 28, 2020, defendants filed a motion requesting an order revoking plaintiff’s in

23

forma pauperis status because, prior to filing this action, plaintiff had accrued three or more prior

24

dismissals that count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 43.) On August 20, 2020,

25

the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that

26

defendants’ pending motion be granted. (Doc. No. 45.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found

27

that (1) plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and (2) the

28

allegations in his complaint to do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury”
1

1

exception to § 1915(g). (Id. at 1–2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff

2

and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service.

3

(Id. at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the

4

time in which to do so has now passed.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Accordingly,

9

1.

10
11

adopted in full;
2.

12
13

The findings and recommendations issued on August 20, 2020 (Doc. No. 45) are

Defendant’s motion requesting an order revoking plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
status (Doc. No. 43) is granted;

3.

14

The July 6, 2018 order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 5) is vacated;

15

4.

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is revoked;

16

5.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the

17
18

required filing fee of $400.00 in full to proceed with this action;
6.

19
20

Failure to pay the filing fee within the allotted time will result in dismissal of this
action; and,

7.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California

21

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and on the Financial Department of

22

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 16, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2