(PC) Herrera v. Unknown, et al.
Filing
7
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/7/2021 ORDERING Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied and Plaintif f be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee within 14 days from the date of any order adopting these findings and recommendations and be warned that failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Case 2:21-cv-01170-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 09/07/21 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
ROBERTO HERRERA,
12
13
14
No. 2:21-cv-1170-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN, et al.,
15
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the
19
reasons stated below, the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated he is eligible to proceed
20
in forma pauperis.
21
A prisoner may not proceed in forma pauperis:
22
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 prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
23
24
25
26
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A review of court records from this court reveals that it was determined in
27
Herrera v. Ulit, No. 1:13-cv-1806-AWI-MJS, that plaintiff has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C.
28
§ 1915(g).
1
Case 2:21-cv-01170-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3
1
The section 1915(g) exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that
2
the prisoner faced “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing. 28 U.S.C.
3
§ 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, plaintiff alleges he
4
has suffered “off and on” from chest pains for many years. ECF No. 1 at 3. On June 9, 2021, he
5
allegedly reported chest pains to “RN Sandra.” Id. She allegedly did nothing to ensure that he
6
was not having a stroke or otherwise save his life. Without further elaboration, plaintiff states
7
that “this has not been the first time this has happened with CDCR HC Staff.” Id. Plaintiff does
8
not indicate whether he ever received medical care for the June 9th incident, or whether the chest
9
pains persist of have resolved. The allegations do not show that when plaintiff filed his complaint
10
on June 24, 2021, he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
11
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must therefore be denied
12
pursuant to § 1915(g). Plaintiff must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with
13
this action.
14
15
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States
District Judge to this action.
16
17
Further, because plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and is not eligible to proceed in forma
pauperis, it is RECOMMENDED that:
18
1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and
19
2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any
20
order adopting these findings and recommendations and be warned that failure to do so will result
21
in the dismissal of this action.
22
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
23
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
24
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
25
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
26
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
27
/////
28
/////
2
Case 2:21-cv-01170-TLN-EFB Document 7 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3
1
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
2
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: September 7, 2021.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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?