Hubbard v. Seng, et al

Filing 11

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/13/15 ORDERING that plaintiffs filings at ECF Nos. 6 , 8 , 9 , and10 be disregarded. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee in accordance with this courts order. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ZANE HUBBARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-00025 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS

MICHAEL J. SENG, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983, on his complaint filed January 5, 2015. ECF No. 1. By order filed January 22,

19

2015, plaintiff was determined to be a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No.

20

4. Plaintiff was given twenty-eight days to submit the filing fee and was advised that failure to

21

pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of this action. Id. Twenty-eight days have passed and

22

plaintiff did not submit the filing fee. Instead of paying the filing fee, plaintiff has instead filed a

23

motion for assistance with service (ECF No. 6), a motion to compel the court to uphold the U.S.

24

Constitution (ECF No. 8), a petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 9), and an amended

25

petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 10).1 None of the allegations in these documents

26

////

27
28

1

If plaintiff seeks to initiate a petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must do so in a separate
action.
1

1

satisfy the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g).2 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047,

2

1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007)

3
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s filings at ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, and
10 be disregarded.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to pay the
filing fee in accordance with this court’s order. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

8

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

9

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

10

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

11

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

12

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

13

(9th Cir. 1991).

14

DATED: April 13, 2015

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff seeks assistance in serving documents on prospective defendants (ECF No. 6) and
argues that § 1915(g) is unconstitutional because it constitutes an ex post facto law and bill of
attainder (ECF Nos. 8-10). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180-82 (9th Cir. 1999)
(holding § 1915(g) does not violate due process, equal protection, Ex Post Facto Clause, or
separation of powers); Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604-06 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that §
1915(g) is not impermissibly retroactive or ex post facto, does not violate equal protection or due
process and does not violate prohibition on bills of attainder), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1028
(1999).
2