Opinion
2:23-cv-00092-DAD-JDP (PC)
07-22-2023
ZURI SANAKABISA YOUNG, et al., Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(DOC. NOS. 9, 20)
Plaintiff Zuri Sanakabisa Young is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 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 April 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9) be denied 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. 20); see Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051-55 (9th Cir. 2007). The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff be ordered to pay the required $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (Id. at 1.) The 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 timely filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations on April 20, 2023. (Doc. No. 21.)
In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff contends without any basis that the assigned magistrate judge is biased, engaged in embezzlement, judicial misconduct, and corruption. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff's accusations in this regard are not appropriate, and the undersigned will disregard them. In addition, plaintiff contests that he has accumulated at least three prior strike dismissals, enough to be barred by the “three strikes” provision, but he does so by arguing in conclusory fashion that he has “always stated cognizable meritorious claims.” (Id. at 2.) Notwithstanding plaintiff's belief, the undersigned has reviewed the dismissal orders relied upon in the pending findings and recommendation and has confirmed that plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under § 1915(g). Accordingly, plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.
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 issued on April 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 20) are adopted;
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9) is denied;
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action;
4. Plaintiff is forewarned that 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 further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.