(PC) Finney v. Phi et al, No. 1:2017cv01541 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and ORDER VACATING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/30/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HARLEY FINNEY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT (ECF No. 9) PHI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 13) Plaintiff Harley Finney (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 19 Case No. 1:17-cv-01541-DAD-BAM (PC) action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On January 10, 2018, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that 22 Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 23 13.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any 24 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) No 25 objections were filed. On March 12, 2018, before the assigned District Judge had ruled on the pending findings 26 27 and recommendations, Plaintiff submitted the $400.00 filing fee in full. 28 /// 1 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 9), is HEREBY 2 DENIED as moot, and the findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 3 proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 13), are VACATED. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened 4 in due course. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 30, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 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.