(PC) Larson v. Doe, et al., No. 1:2008cv00998 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING in FULL the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 17 and DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/17/09: Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit the $350.00 filing fee within fifteen (15) days; and If Plaintiff fails to pay said filing fee in full within fifteen (15) days, this action shall be dismissed, without prejudice. (Filing Fee Deadline: 5/8/2009)(Hellings, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Larson v. Doe, et al. Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 HARVEY EUGENE LARSON, CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00998-AWI-DLB PC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 v. 12 JOHN DOE, et al., 13 (Doc. 17). Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Harvey Eugene Larson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 17 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 19 On February 18, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 20 which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the 21 Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within fifteen days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to 22 the Findings and Recommendations on March 6, 2009.1 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 25 1 26 27 28 On March 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of this court’s order vacating an order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 18, 20). "W hen a Notice of Appeal is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply." Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007). Because no appeal lies from an order vacating a previous order, this action shall proceed despite the filing of the March 19, 2009 Notice of Appeal. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 18, 2009 is adopted in full; 4 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff is denied leave to proceed in forma 5 6 pauperis; 3. 7 8 Plaintiff is ordered to submit the $350.00 filing fee in full within fifteen (15) days; and 4. 9 If Plaintiff fails to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within fifteen (15) days, this action shall be dismissed, without prejudice. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 0m8i78 April 17, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 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.