From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Pickering

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2020
No. 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM (PC)

03-13-2020

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. S. PICKERING, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. Nos. 2, 7)

Plaintiff Sedric Eugene Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 6, 2020, plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint (Doc. No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). 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 January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that he be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations of plaintiff's complaint do not satisfy the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Those 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 3.) On January 24, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 9.) However, in his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates his request that he be granted in forma pauperis status "based off the fact that this case do[es] have merit, in which, as the next stage of exhausting my administrative remedies beyond the 'California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation . . ." and he is unable to pay the initial filing fee. (Id. at 1-2.) Accordingly, plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. Furthermore, plaintiff's objections do not address the magistrate judge's finding that the allegations set forth in plaintiff's complaint are insufficient to trigger the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception under § 1915(g).

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

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 7) issued on January 10, 2020, are adopted in full;

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

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action;
///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// /////
4. Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time will result in the dismissal of this action; and

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Johnson v. Pickering

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2020
No. 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020)
Case details for

Johnson v. Pickering

Case Details

Full title:SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. S. PICKERING, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 13, 2020

Citations

No. 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020)