(PC)Harris v. Torrs, No. 1:2019cv01171 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/2020. Filing fee due within 30 days. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN HARRIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 TORRS, 15 No. 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 3) Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Marvin Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, nor has he paid the $400.00 filing fee. 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 February 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the court not permit plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and that he be 24 required to pay the filing fee in order to proceed with this action because: (1) he is subject to the 25 three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint do not 26 satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 3 at 27 3–4.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 28 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4–5.) On 1 1 March 2, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 2 4.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 4 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 5 plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 6 supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff does not address 8 the prior cases he has filed which were cited by the magistrate judge as prior strike dismissals. 9 Plaintiff merely reiterates the arguments presented in his complaint—that defendant acted with 10 “deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger”—but he does not assert any basis that 11 would support a finding that he faces “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Doc. No. 4 12 at 3.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending 13 findings and recommendations. 14 Accordingly: 15 1. 16 17 adopted; 2. 18 19 22 23 Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to pay in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action; and 3. 20 21 The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 3) issued on February 4, 2020 are Plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2020 UNITED STATES 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.
