Opinion
1:21-cv-01217-DAD-BAM (PC)
09-14-2021
JAMALL E. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. DURAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. Nos. 2, 7, 8)
Plaintiff Jamall E. Adams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 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 August 17, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied because it was determined that plaintiff had sufficient funds in his trust account to pay the required filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 7.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not file any objections to those findings and recommendations.
However, on August 27, 2021, in lieu of filing objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff filed a motion requesting “that he not pay [the] filing fee at this moment” because he is unemployed and under the poverty guidelines. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) Therein, plaintiff explains that the only reason he has a sufficient balance in his prison trust account is because he received a stimulus check from the government due to the coronavirus pandemic. (Id. at 1-2.) Nonetheless, plaintiff has provided the court no authority for his apparent argument that the court cannot consider funds he received from a government economic stimulus program in evaluating his application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action and in determining whether he is or is not able to pay court filing fees. Although plaintiff may be unemployed and without present other income, plaintiff is financially able to pay the filing fee at this time.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs latest motion to be relieved of his obligation to pay the filing fee in order to proceed with this case, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 17, 2021 (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied;
3. Plaintiff s motion to proceed in this action without paying the required filing fee (Doc. No. 8) is denied;
4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action in full;
5. Plaintiff s failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice; and
6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.