(PC) Wilson v. California State Prison Corcoran et al, No. 1:2018cv00424 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/17/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. WILSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:18-cv-00424-DAD-JDP v. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON CORCORAN, et al., Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) 17 Plaintiff David W. Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 2, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 22 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(g) be denied and that plaintiff be required to submit the required $400.00 filing fee for this 24 action in full within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 3.) On April 14, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to 25 those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 4.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 26 27 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 28 ///// 1 1 plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 2 record and by proper analysis. 3 In his objections, plaintiff contends that he is in imminent danger of serious physical 4 injury, which would permit him to proceed in forma pauperis despite having suffered three prior 5 strike dismissals. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In support of this argument, however, plaintiff merely 6 restates the allegations of his complaint concerning retaliation and the failure of prison staff to 7 accommodate his medical conditions. The assigned magistrate judge previously found that these 8 alleged conditions, even if true, do not rise to the level of imminent danger of serious physical 9 injury sufficient to qualify for the exception under § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 3 at 3.) The undersigned 10 concurs with this analysis and conclusion. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. 13 The findings and recommendations issued April 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full; 14 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 15 3. Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to 16 17 pay in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action; 4. 18 19 of this action without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the filing fee; and 5. 20 21 22 Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2