(PC) McCoy v. Brown et al, No. 1:2018cv00545 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding denial of Plaintiff's Motions to proceed in forma pauperis 10 , 12 , 18 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/4/2019. 21-Day Filing Deadline.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSEPH RAYMOND McCOY, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 BROWN, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF Nos. 10, 12, and 18) 14 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 15 16 Case No. 1:18-cv-00545-AWI-BAM (PC) Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on April 23, 2018. 18 (ECF No. 1.) 19 On July 20, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 20 that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that Plaintiff be required to 21 pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 12.) Those findings and 22 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 23 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) Following two extensions of time, 24 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on October 26, 2018. (ECF No. 25 17.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental objection on January 30, 2019. (ECF No. 18.) 26 In his objections, Plaintiff reiterates his contention that his constitutional rights were 27 violated by Defendants at an April 14, 2015 initial parole consideration hearing, and further 28 violated on June 24, 2015 following the hearing. Plaintiff alleges that, following these alleged 1 1 constitutional violations, his interest in liberty is ongoing, and therefore the imminent danger 2 exception is satisfied. 3 Plaintiff’s objections are unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that he has an 4 ongoing interest in liberty (having an allegedly incorrect sentence changed) is not sufficient to 5 demonstrate that he was in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” In addition, none of 6 Plaintiff’s remaining allegations pertain to events after 2015, and therefore cannot demonstrate 7 that Plaintiff was in any danger of serious physical injury in 2018, when the complaint was filed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including all of Plaintiff’s 10 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are 11 supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. 14 15 adopted in full; 2. 16 17 The Findings and Recommendations, (ECF No. 12), issued on July 20, 2018, are In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 10) is denied; and 3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 18 shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails 19 to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without 20 further notice. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2019 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.