From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Brunk

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 7, 2022
1:22-cv-00405 JLT HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-00405 JLT HBK (PC)

10-07-2022

MARVIN HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. D. BRUNK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DOCS. 7, 9)

Marvin Harris seeks to hold Defendants D. Brunk, Hampson, Figueroa, and John Doe liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the action. (Doc. 7.)

The assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff had at least three cases dismissed that qualified as a strike under Ninth Circuit authority before filing this action on April 8, 2022. (Doc. 9 at 5-6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Id.) In addition, the magistrate judge found the complaint did not contain any plausible allegations that would satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to Section 1915(g), even when liberally construed. (Id. at 6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP be denied. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff. It also notified Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were due within fourteen days. (Doc. at 6-7.) The Court also advised Plaintiff “that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 7, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.

Pursuant to t 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 19, 2022 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) is DENIED.

3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay in full the $402.00 filing fee if he wishes to proceed with his action.

4. Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harris v. Brunk

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 7, 2022
1:22-cv-00405 JLT HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Harris v. Brunk

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. D. BRUNK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 7, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-00405 JLT HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2022)