From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Long v. United States

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 17, 2023
1:23-cv-01117-ADA-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)

Opinion

1:23-cv-01117-ADA-BAM (PC)

08-17-2023

KEVIN MICHAEL LONG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF Nos. 2, 5)

Plaintiff Kevin Michael Long is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 28, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff has accrued three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 5.) The Magistrate Judge also found that Plaintiff did not qualify for the “imminent danger” exception to § 1915(g). (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on August 14, 2023. (ECF No. 6.)

Plaintiff's objections do not challenge the Magistrate Judge's finding that he has three or more “strikes.” Rather, he argues that the current action raises meritorious claims. His arguments are unpersuasive and, more importantly, fail to allege facts that might qualify Plaintiff for the “imminent danger” exception to § 1915(g).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 28, 2023, (ECF No. 5), are adopted in full;

2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is denied; and

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Long v. United States

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 17, 2023
1:23-cv-01117-ADA-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)
Case details for

Long v. United States

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN MICHAEL LONG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 17, 2023

Citations

1:23-cv-01117-ADA-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)