Alkebu-Lan v. Dickinson
Filing
61
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/4/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 56 motion to stay the district judge's 3/31/14 order revoking plaintiff's ifp status; DENYING plaintiff's [ 57] motion to pay the filing fee in installments; DENYING plaintiff's 58 motion for an extension of time within which to file objections to the district judge's 3/31/14 order; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SHAI ALKEBU-LAN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-0291 LKK KJN P
v.
ORDER and
K. DICKINSON, Warden, et al.,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
17
18
1983. Plaintiff challenges the district judge’s order revoking plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.1
19
By order filed March 31, 2014, the district judge granted defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s
20
in forma pauperis status, on the ground that plaintiff is a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. §
21
1915(g),2 who failed to demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical
22
1
23
Also pending is plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the undersigned’s
order denying plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel. (See ECF Nos. 54, 55, 59,
60.)
24
2
25
26
27
28
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has,
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
1
1
injury” when he filed this action. (See ECF No. 53.) The district judge directed plaintiff to pay
2
the full filing fee within thirty days, and informed plaintiff that “[f]ailure to pay the filing fee as
3
required by this order will result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 4.)
4
Plaintiff now seeks to “stay” the district judge’s March 31, 2014 order to permit plaintiff
5
time to appeal the order, and to “preserve these issues for Supreme Court review” (ECF No. 56);
6
to pay the filing fee in installments “until his appeals upon review is granted” (ECF No. 57); and
7
to be accorded a 60-day extension of time within which to file objections to the order3 (ECF No.
8
58).
The undersigned finds no precedent for plaintiff’s requests. “‘Section 1915(g) . . .
9
10
preclude[s] a three struck inmate from using the installment payment mechanism of § 1915(b)
11
unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.’” Beeson v. Copsey, 2011 WL
12
4948218, *2 (D. Idaho 2011) (quoting Hughes v. Correctional Med. Servs., 2008 WL 4099259,
13
*2 (N.D. Ind. 2008)).
14
The thirty-day deadline established by the district judge for plaintiff to pay the filing fee
15
expired on April 30, 2014. Since then, plaintiff has had an additional month within which to pay
16
the fee. In light of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and plaintiff’s failure to comply with
17
the district judge’s order, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action without
18
prejudice to plaintiff renewing his claims in a new action commenced with full payment of the
19
filing fee.
20
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
21
1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the district judge’s March 31, 2014 order revoking plaintiff’s
22
in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 56), is denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to pay the filing fee in installments (ECF No. 57), is denied.
23
24
////
25
26
27
28
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
3
This motion also seeks additional time to file objections to the undersigned’s order denying
plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. (See n.1, supra.) However, because plaintiff has
appealed this matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the undersigned finds this request
moot.
2
1
2
3
4
3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time within which to file objections to the district
judge’s March 31, 2014 order (ECF No. 58), is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
6
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
7
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
8
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
9
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
10
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
11
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
12
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
Dated: June 4, 2014
14
15
/alke0291.f&r.dsms
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?