(PC) Guevara v. Superior Court County of San Mateo et al, No. 1:2018cv00871 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Proceed IFP as MOOT; ORDER VACATING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/18/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE TIMOTEO GUEVARA, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 Case No. 1:18-cv-00871-DAD-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT (ECF No. 13) ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 15) Plaintiff Jose Timoteo Guevara (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On August 31, 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 15.) 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 2.) 25 26 27 28 On September 17, 2018, rather than filing objections to the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing fee in full. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 13), is HEREBY DENIED as moot, and the findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 1 1 forma pauperis, (ECF No. 15), are VACATED. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due 2 course. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara September 18, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 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.