(PC) Cohea v. Faldon et al, No. 1:2016cv00955 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Plaintiff's 6 & 7 Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and REQUIRING Plaintiff to Pay $400.00 Filing Fee in Full Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/16. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY JAMES COHEA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY $400.00 FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 17 (Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 8) 14 15 v. No. 1:16-cv-00955-DAD-EPG J. FALDON et al., Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Danny Cohea is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his complaint on July 5, 22 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On July 25, 2016, and August 3, 2016, plaintiff filed applications to proceed 23 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. Nos. 6, 7.) The matter was referred to a 24 United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On September 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 26 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis be 27 denied because he has suffered three strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and does not qualify 28 to proceed in forma pauperis under the imminent danger exception. (Doc. No. 8.) On October 1 1 14, 2016, plaintiff filed objections, of 48 pages in length, to the findings and recommendations. 2 (Doc. No. 9.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 5 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 6 by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The September 16, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 8) are adopted in 9 full; 10 2. Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 6, 7) are denied; 11 3. Plaintiff is required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full for this action, within thirty 12 days of the date of service of this order; 13 4. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action; and 14 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial 15 16 17 Department, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.