(PC) Josh Bland v. Pedersen et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations, revoking In Forma Pauperis Status, and directing payment of filing fee 8 , 4 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/14/2020. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA BLAND, 12 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-00793-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, v. J. PEDERSEN, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 4, 8) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Joshua Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order granting plaintiff’s 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and directing the 23 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to collect the required filing 24 fee payments from plaintiff’s inmate trust account and forward them to the Clerk of the Court. 25 (Doc. No. 4.) 26 On August 6, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 27 recommending that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis be revoked and that plaintiff be required to pay 28 the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action because (1) he is subject to the three 1 strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and (2) the allegations in his complaint to do not satisfy the 2 “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 8.) 3 On August 17, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 4 recommendations. (Doc. No. 10.) In his objections, plaintiff does not dispute that the three 5 dismissals cited by the magistrate judge are strike dismissals under § 1915(g), nor does he 6 contend that the allegations in his complaint trigger the imminent danger exception. Rather, he 7 contends that various federal and state rules and statutes, including the Prison Litigation Reform 8 Act, infringe upon his constitutional rights. (See id.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 11 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 12 proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections are frivolous. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued on August 6, 2020 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted in full; 16 2. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is revoked; 17 3. The order directing CDCR to collect filing fee payments from plaintiff’s inmate 18 19 trust account issued on June 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 4) is vacated; 4. 20 21 required filing fee of $400.00 in full to proceed with this action; 5. 22 23 Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the Failure to pay the filing fee within the allotted time will result in dismissal of this action; and, 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on CDCR and on 24 the Financial Department of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 25 California. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?