(PC) Pierce v. U.S. Congress, No. 1:2016cv01282 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER ADOPTING 8 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; and ORDER DENYING 16 Plaintiff's Request signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/2016. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAVON PIERCE, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. U.S. CONGRESS, Defendant. No. 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 16 (Doc. Nos. 2, 4, 8, 16) 17 FILING FEE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 18 19 Plaintiff Seavon Pierce is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil action. This matter 20 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 21 Rule 302. On September 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied 23 because he has suffered three or more dismissals constituting strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 24 and does not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under the imminent danger exception. (Doc. 25 No. 4.) On September 26, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations. 26 (Doc. No. 5.) Based on new arguments raised by plaintiff therein, the assigned magistrate judge 27 issued supplemental findings and recommendations, again recommending that plaintiff’s motion 28 to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 8.) On October 17, 2016, plaintiff again filed 1 1 objections. (Doc. No. 9.) On November 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a request with this court, again 2 challenging the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and alternatively 3 requesting that this court set the filing fee in connection with this civil rights action at $5.00. 4 (Doc. No. 16.) 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 6 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 7 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 8 proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit for the reasons stated by the magistrate 9 judge. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The September 13, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 4) and the 12 September 30, 2016 supplemental findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 8) are 13 adopted in full; 14 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 15 3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of the date 16 of this order; 17 4. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the action will be dismissed; and 18 5. Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 16) is denied as having been rendered moot by this order. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
