(PC) Thomas v. Pfeiffer, et al.

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING 8 Motion to Proceed IFP; within twenty-one (21) days following service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the required $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action; this matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with this order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/12/2021.(Martin-Gill, S)

Case 1:20-cv-01679-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD N. THOMAS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:20-cv-01679-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 6)

17
18

Plaintiff Edward N. Thomas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19

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

20

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

21

On December 3, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

22

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be

23

denied and that he be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action

24

because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the

25

allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury”

26

exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 6 at 2–4.) Specifically, as to the former ground, the magistrate

27

judge finds that the undersigned has already denied in forma pauperis status once to plaintiff

28

under 1915(g) in Thomas v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:19-cv-01489-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.). (Doc. No. 6 at
1

Case 1:20-cv-01679-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3
1

2.) As to the latter ground, the findings and recommendations conclude that plaintiff’s alleged

2

imminent harm occurred at a different facility and well before the filing of the instant complaint.

3

(Id. at 3.) Therefore, “there are no factual allegations in [plaintiff’s] complaint that raise a

4

reasonable inference that he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time

5

that he initiated this action.” (Id.)

6

Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that

7

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) On

8

December 21, 2020 the magistrate judge granted plaintiff an extension of time to file objections

9

to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 25,

10

2021. (Doc. No. 14.) Therein, plaintiff appears to argue that he is still in imminent danger “at the

11

hands of these CSP-Sacramento prison staff correctional officers,” though he offers no evidence

12

or facts as to how that is the case. (Doc. No. 14 at 6.) Plaintiff also appears to repeat formerly

13

made arguments that his past dismissals should not count as strikes. (Id.) Plaintiff’s objections

14

fail to show how he has plausibly pled an ongoing danger as opposed to merely alleging past

15

injuries or adverse administrative actions by defendants. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d

16

1047, 1057 n.11 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the court has previously found that plaintiff suffered

17

three prior strike dismissals under § 1915(g). See Thomas v. Parks, No. 116-cv-01393-LJO-JLT,

18

2018 WL 4373021, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018). Plaintiff’s objections, therefore, do not

19

dissuade the court from adopting the pending findings and recommendations.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Accordingly:

24

1.

25

adopted in full;

26

2.

27
28

The findings and recommendations issued on December 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 6), are

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 8) is denied;

/////
2

Case 1:20-cv-01679-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3
1

3.

2
3

required $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action;
4.

4
5

8
9

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time will result in the
dismissal of this action; and

5.

6
7

Within twenty-one (21) days following service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings
consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 12, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3