(PC) Rodriguez v. Cate et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00898-NONE-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
(Doc. Nos. 2, 21)

16
17

Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

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

20

On August 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) be denied because

22

plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee when he filed his motion. (Doc. No. 21.) The

23

judge noted, though, that “two years have passed since plaintiff filed his IFP motion; therefore, an

24

extension of time to pay the filing fee is warranted.” (Id. at 2.) The findings and

25

recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file objections thereto.

26

(Id. at 3.)

27

Plaintiff filed objections on October 19, 2021. (Doc. No. 22.) Therein, plaintiff concedes

28

that he had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee when he filed his motion. (Id.) He states that he

1

is “willing to pay” the filing fee, but he requests “the 90 days that are recommended” by the

2

magistrate judge. (Id.)

3

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

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

5

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

6

proper analysis. According to his inmate trust account statement (Doc. No. 6), plaintiff had

7

sufficient funds to pay the filing fee when he filed his motion to proceed IFP. Therefore, IFP

8

status is not warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court agrees, however, that plaintiff

9

should be granted an extended period of time to pay the filing fee since he filed his motion more

10

than two years ago.

11

Accordingly,

12

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 24, 2021 (Doc. No. 21) are

13

adopted in full;

14

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

15

3. Within 90 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the $402 filing

16
17

fee in full; and,
4. Failure to pay the filing fee within the time provided will result in dismissal of this

18

action.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 26, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2