(PC) Goff v. Walters et al, No. 1:2018cv00904 - Document 46 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 45 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 43 Defendant's Motion Requesting an Order Revoking Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Status; and ORDER VACATING 5 Order Granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/16/2020. Filing Fee due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS L. GOFF, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:18-cv-00904-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. S. WALTERS, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 43, 45) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Thomas L. Goff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 28, 2020, defendants filed a motion requesting an order revoking plaintiff’s in 23 forma pauperis status because, prior to filing this action, plaintiff had accrued three or more prior 24 dismissals that count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 43.) On August 20, 2020, 25 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 26 defendants’ pending motion be granted. (Doc. No. 45.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found 27 that (1) plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and (2) the 28 allegations in his complaint to do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” 1 1 exception to § 1915(g). (Id. at 1–2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 2 and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. 3 (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the 4 time in which to do so has now passed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 6 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 7 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. 10 11 adopted in full; 2. 12 13 The findings and recommendations issued on August 20, 2020 (Doc. No. 45) are Defendant’s motion requesting an order revoking plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 43) is granted; 3. 14 The July 6, 2018 order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 5) is vacated; 15 4. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is revoked; 16 5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 17 18 required filing fee of $400.00 in full to proceed with this action; 6. 19 20 Failure to pay the filing fee within the allotted time will result in dismissal of this action; and, 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California 21 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and on the Financial Department of 22 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2