(PC) Washington v. Hicks, et al., No. 1:2019cv00156 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER Vacating 8 Findings and Recommendations Entered on February 13, 2019; ORDER Denying as Moot 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/12/19. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, 12 13 14 15 1:19-cv-00156-LJO-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2019 (ECF No. 8.) vs. DAVID HICKS, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT (ECF No. 2.) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Tracye Benard Washington (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 23 action on February 5, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 24 On February 13, 2019, the undersigned entered findings and recommendations, 25 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and Plaintiff be 26 required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days 27 in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) On March 7, 2019, 28 Plaintiff submitted a $400.00 payment to the court for the filing fee. (Court Record.) 1 1 In light of Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee the court finds good cause to vacate the 2 findings and recommendations entered on February 13, 2019, and to deny Plaintiff’s motion to 3 proceed in forma pauperis, filed on February 5, 2019, as moot. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 7 VACATED; 2. 8 9 The findings and recommendations entered on February 13, 2019, are Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on February 5, 2019, is DENIED as moot; and 3. The court shall screen Plaintiff’s Complaint in due time. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 12, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.