Cramer v. Jones et al, No. 1:2019cv00161 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 Filing Fee in full to proceed with this action; The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order,signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/27/2020. ( Case Management Deadline: 14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
Cramer v. Jones et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW B. CRAMER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. BARRY JONES, Chief of Police at the City of Tulare, et al., Defendants. No. 1:19-cv-00161-DAD-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 12) 17 18 Plaintiff Matthew B. Cramer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 brought pursuant to 28 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. 21 On May 22, 2019, the undersigned adopted findings and recommendations and denied 22 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that he was subject to the three 23 strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 5.) On October 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit 24 Court of Appeals vacated that order and remanded this action for further proceedings, finding that 25 one of the prior dismissals relied upon by this court in its May 22, 2019 order did not constitute a 26 strike under § 1915(g). On January 24, 2020, following remand from the Ninth Circuit (Doc. No. 27 10), the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, again recommending 28 that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. No. 2) be denied. (Doc. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 No. 3.) Specifically, the magistrate judge identified three cases, in addition to the one 2 erroneously relied upon by this court previously, where actions brought by plaintiff had been 3 dismissed as a whole for failing to state a claim: Cramer v. Ty H. Warner, Inc., No. 2:00-mc- 4 00099-FCD-GGH (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2001); Cramer v. Multnomah Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 5 3:02-cv-00141-JE (D. Or. June 25, 2002); Cramer v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:08-cv-01310-GSA 6 (E.D. Cal. April 24, 2009). Based upon those prior dismissals, the magistrate judge found that 7 plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the allegations of his 8 complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to that bar. 9 (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 10 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 5.) No 11 objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 13 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 14 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. 17 18 adopted in full; 2. 19 20 3. 4. 27 Failure to pay the required filing fee in full within the specified time will result in the dismissal of this case; and 5. 25 26 Within fourteen (14) days following service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action; 23 24 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 21 22 The findings and recommendations issued on January 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 12), are The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 27, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.