(PC) Hill v. Dozer et al, No. 1:2018cv00326 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 10 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Pay $400.00 Filing Fee In Full Within Thirty Days, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/23/18. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHNATHAN HILL, Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-LJO-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NO. 10) 12 13 v. D. DOZER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY $400.00 FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 16 17 18 19 Johnathan Hill (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 20 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 The matter was referred to a United States On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 23 No. 2). 24 recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis be 25 denied because Plaintiff has three 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “strikes” and does not qualify for the 26 imminent danger exception. (ECF No. 10). 27 On March 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed his response to the findings and recommendations. 28 1 1 (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff states that it appears that Judge Grosjean is correct, but asks the Court 2 to make sure that Macias and Martinez are separate cases. 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 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 While the cases may be based on the same underlying incidents, Hill v. Macias (E.D. 8 CA, Case No. 1:14-cv-01425) and Hill v. Martinez (E.D. CA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00161) are 9 separate cases, and each counts as a strike for the reasons identified in the magistrate judge’s 10 findings and recommendations. 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 12 1. 13 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 22, 2018, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 14 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; 15 3. Plaintiff shall pay the $400 filing fee in full within thirty days from the date of 16 17 service of this order if he wants to proceed with this action; and 4. 18 Failure to pay the filing fee within thirty days from the date of service of this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 23, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2