From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Lynch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 10, 2021
2:21-cv-2043 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-2043 KJN P

11-10-2021

DAVID ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. JEFF LYNCH, Warden, Defendant.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, plaintiff is not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this action because it was determined that he has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he does not seek relief with respect to conditions which adequately allege “imminent danger to serious physical injury.” Id. Rather, plaintiff complains about irregularities with his prison trust account, claiming he had not yet received his stimulus check and that child support and other payments were already deducted. (ECF No. 1.)

See Roberts v. Wasco State Prison, No. 1:21-0097 DAD EPG (E.D. Cal. March 12, 2021).

Such allegations fail to demonstrate imminent danger. Thus, plaintiff must submit the appropriate filing fee in order to proceed with this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit, within twenty-one days from the date of this order, the $402.00 filing fee. Plaintiffs failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.


Summaries of

Roberts v. Lynch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 10, 2021
2:21-cv-2043 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021)
Case details for

Roberts v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. JEFF LYNCH, Warden, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 10, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-2043 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021)