-GSA (PC) Adams v. Dept Of Corrections et al, No. 1:2007cv00791 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 27 Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status and GRANTING Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Fourth Amended Complaint; ORDE R REVOKING Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status; ORDER VACATING 9 Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER VACATING 10 Order Directing CDCR to Collect Filing Fee Payments for this Action; ORDER for Clerk to Serve this Order on Director of CDCR and Court's Financial Department; ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to PAY $350.00 Filing Fee in Full within Thirty Days or Case will be Dismissed signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/29/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
-GSA (PC) Adams v. Dept Of Corrections et al Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RONALD L. ADAMS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. JAMES TILTON, et al., 13 14 15 1:07-cv-00791-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 39.) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 27.) Defendants. 16 ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 17 ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 9.) 18 19 20 ORDER VACATING ORDER DIRECTING CDCR TO COLLECT FILING FEE PAYMENTS FOR THIS ACTION (Doc. 10.) 21 22 ORDER FOR CLERK TO SERVE THIS ORDER ON DIRECTOR OF CDCR AND COURT'S FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT 23 24 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY $350.00 FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, OR CASE WILL BE DISMISSED 25 26 ________________________/ 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Ronald L. Adams ("Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 2 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 3 to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 4 On April 22, 2011, Findings and Recommendations were entered, recommending that 5 Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 6 and Defendants' request for an extension of time to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint be 7 granted. (Doc. 39.) On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and 8 Recommendations. (Doc. 43.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 10 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 11 including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported 12 by the record and proper analysis. 13 Plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendations on the ground that Defendants have 14 not submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that the dismissal of case Adams v. Marshall, Case 15 No. 91-cv-04224 RFP (N. D. Cal.) counts as a "strike"against him under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 16 Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not proven that he filed the Amended Complaint on March 3, 17 1992 in Adams v. Marshall, because the entry on the Northern District' Court's docket states that the 18 Amended Complaint was filed by Ronald D. Adams, and Plaintiff's middle initial is L, not D. 19 Plaintiff claims, in an unverified statement, that he never filed an Amended Complaint on March 3, 20 1992. Plaintiff's argument fails because the Court based its findings in the Findings and 21 Recommendations on Defendants' evidence that the plaintiff in Adams v. Marshall is the same 22 person as Plaintiff in the present action, and the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.1 23 Plaintiff does not dispute that he was the plaintiff in Adams v. Marshall, and Plaintiff has not 24 25 26 27 28 1 Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added). 2 1 submitted any admissible evidence that the incorrect middle initial in the docket entry by the 2 Northern District's Clerk in Adams v. Marshall is more than a typographical error. Therefore, 3 Plaintiff has not met his burden to persuade the Court that § 1915(g) does not apply. 4 Finally, the court has independently reviewed the opinions that were used as strikes in Adams 5 v. Carcy, 2:07-1878 JAM KJM P. After reviewing the court’s dismissal orders in each of the earlier 6 cases, the court independently finds that Plaintiff has obtained three strikes. 7 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 8 1. 9 10 22, 2011, are ADOPTED in full; 2. 11 12 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED; 4. 15 16 Defendants’ Motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and Request for extension of time are GRANTED; 13 14 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April The Court’s order of June 5, 2007, which granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, is VACATED; 5. The Court’s order of June 5, 2007, which directed the CDCR to make 17 payments to the Court from Plaintiff’s prison trust account for payment of the 18 filing fee for this action is VACATED; 19 6. 20 21 Plaintiff is REQUIRED to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order; 7. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on: 22 (1) the Director of the CDCR; and 23 (2) the Financial Department, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of 24 25 California, Fresno Division; 8. Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days after the date 26 Plaintiff pays the filing fee for this action, in which to respond to the Fourth 27 Amended Complaint; and 28 3 1 9. 2 3 If Plaintiff fails to pay the $350.00 filing fee pursuant to this order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice, without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: 0m8i78 September 29, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.