(PC) Ransom v. Martinez et al, No. 1:2007cv01511 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 43 Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status;ORDER DENYING 43 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER ADOPTING 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; PLAINTIFF ORDERED TO PAY $350.00 filing fee in full within fifteen (15)days from the date of service of this order, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/09/2011. (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ransom v. Martinez et al Doc. 53 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 9 10 CASE NO. 1:07-CV-01511-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (DOC. 51) 11 J. MARTINEZ, et al., FILING FEE DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS 12 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 30, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to 17 revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss this action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 20 served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and 21 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the 22 Findings and Recommendations on February 14, 2011. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 24 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 25 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Plaintiff repeats his arguments that dismissals pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 27 (1994), should not be construed as dismissals for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 1915(g). Plaintiff also contends that dismissals without prejudice should not qualify as strikes. The 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Court disagrees. A dismissal pursuant to Heck is a dismissal because Plaintiff’s claims are not 2 cognizable, which is a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Dismissals without prejudice may still 3 count as dismissals for failure to state a claim. O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 7, 2011, is adopted in full; 6 2. Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is granted; 7 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied; 8 4. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within fifteen (15) days from 9 10 the date of service of this order; and 5. 11 12 13 14 Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 March 9, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
