Cox v. Ford et al
Filing
10
ORDER - Judge Denney's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. 4 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days from the da te of this order to pay the full $402 filing fee (by 10/19/2022). If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the $402 filing fee, his action will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5 ) is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff two copies of this order, and Plaintiff should attach one copy of this order to the check paying the filing fee (second copy of Order attached hereto for distribution to Plaintiff by NNCC law library). Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/19/2022. (Attachments: # 1 2nd Copy of Order) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)
Case 3:22-cv-00047-ART-CSD Document 10 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
MICHAEL-STEVE COX,
7
v.
8
Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-ART-CSD
Plaintiff,
ORDER
ATTORNEY GENERAL FORD, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11
Pro se Plaintiff Michael-Steve Cox brings this action under the Freedom of
12
Information Act (FOIA) against Nevada Attorney General Ford and the State of
13
Nevada (ECF No. 1-1). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
14
(“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney
15
(ECF No. 7), recommending the denial of Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 4)
16
and Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff had until
17
May 6, 2022 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1
18
For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and denies
19
both motions without prejudice until Plaintiff timely files the full $402 filing fee.
20
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
21
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where
22
a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not
23
required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of
24
an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v.
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff did file a “Notice re IFP-Motion “Imminent Dangers Status” (ECF No. 8) and
“Motion/Notice of removal (F.O.I.A.) claims to 8th JDC ‘criminal’ origins, (alternative) reconsider
($5.00) FRCP IFP statute/appointment of counsel” (ECF No. 9). At most, these filings elaborate
alleged unfair treatment by prison staff as to the amount of food given to Plaintiff. Neither of
these filings comply with LR IB 3-2, and this Court considers neither to constitute objections to
Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 7).
1
Case 3:22-cv-00047-ART-CSD Document 10 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3
1
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the
2
magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one
3
or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis
4
in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that
5
the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
6
record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
7
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review,
8
and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. The Court incorporates Judge
9
Denney’s analysis by reference here. Judge Denney recommends denying
10
Plaintiffs’ motions because Plaintiff has filed at least three prior actions 2 while
11
incarcerated that this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have
12
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
13
may be granted. (ECF No. 7 at 2). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) requires prisoners who
14
have filed three or more actions that were later dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
15
or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted to pay the full
16
$402 filing fee in advance unless the prisoner satisfies the requirement of being
17
“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As
18
Plaintiff has filed three prior actions meeting the criteria in § 1915(g), the full
19
filing fee will be due unless Plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious
20
physical injury.” This Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Denney that Plaintiff
21
has not demonstrated that this is the case.
22
As Magistrate Judge Denney noted, “for the imminent danger exception to
23
apply, the complaint must show a nexus between the imminent danger alleged
24
and a cause of action it asserts.” (ECF No. 7 at 2) citing Pettus v. Morgenthau,
25
554 F.3d 293, 298 (2d Cir. 2009); Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Case No. 1:13-
26
27
28
See e.g., Cox v. State of Nevada, Case No. 3:11-cv-00619-LRH-VPC; Cox v. Benedetti, Case No.
3:10-cv-00129-LRH-VPC; Cox v. Bath, Case No. 3:03-cv-00275-ECR-RAM; In re Steve Michael
Cox, Case No. 12-80061 (appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of CV-12-483-LRH); In re Steve
Michael Cox, Case No. 12-80061 (appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of CV-12-17-RCJ). The
court takes judicial notice of its prior records in the above matters.
2
2
Case 3:22-cv-00047-ART-CSD Document 10 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3
1
cv-1883 AWI MJS, 2015 WL 5255377, at *2-6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2015); White v.
2
Montgomery, Case No. 3:18-cv-00877-CAB-PCL, 2018 WL 3007956, at *2 (S.D.
3
Cal. June 15, 2018). Here, Plaintiff attempts to compel disclosure of documents
4
under FOIA via this action. (ECF No. 1-1). As Magistrate Judge Denney noted,
5
Plaintiff does not connect the “imminent danger” Plaintiff cites—allegedly racially
6
motivated allocation of food—with his attempt to obtain documents through
7
FOIA. (ECF Nos. 1-1; 8 at 2-3). Therefore, the absence of a nexus between the
8
alleged danger and Plaintiff’s cause of action here, coupled with Plaintiff’s
9
previous actions, requires this Court to order Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee of
10
$402 if he wishes to continue with this action.
11
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Denney. Having reviewed the
12
Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court will adopt
13
the Report and Recommendation in full.
14
15
It
IS
THEREFORE
ORDERED
that
Judge
Denney’s
Report
and
Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is accepted and adopted in full.
16
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 4) is
17
DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days from the date of
18
this order to pay the full $402 filing fee. If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the $402
19
filing fee, his action will be dismissed without prejudice.
20
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 5) is DENIED without prejudice.
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff two
23
copies of this order, and Plaintiff should attach one copy of this order to the
24
check paying the filing fee.
25
DATED THIS 19th Day of September 2022.
26
27
28
ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?