From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Long

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 2, 2021
2:21-cv-1266 AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1266 AC P

08-02-2021

DAVID ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. LONG, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

A review of court records reveals that on March 12, 2021, plaintiff was determined to be a three strikes litigant within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Roberts v. Wasco State Prison, No. 21-cv-0097 DAD EPG (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021). Plaintiff is therefore precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action unless plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in the complaint which suggest that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See generally ECF No. 1 (sole claim alleging defendants' mishandling of mail). Therefore, plaintiff must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the appropriate filing fee. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order in a timely manner will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.


Summaries of

Roberts v. Long

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 2, 2021
2:21-cv-1266 AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Roberts v. Long

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. LONG, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 2, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-1266 AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021)