(PC) Youngblood v. Esquerra et al, No. 1:2019cv01179 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 5 Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections; and ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Pay the $400.00 Filing Fee Within Thirty (30) Days signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2020. (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 JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01179-DAD-JLT (PC) v. ESQUERRA, Correctional Officer at Corcoran State Prison, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE REQUIRED FILING FEE IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION Defendants. 16 (Doc. Nos. 4, 5) 17 18 Plaintiff Jesse L. Youngblood is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 23 recommending that plaintiff be ordered to pay the required filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 4.) The 24 magistrate judge concluded that because plaintiff has accumulated at least three prior “strikes” 25 under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and had nor alleged facts indicating that he was 26 in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint, he is not eligible 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 to proceed in forma pauperis.1 (Id. at 1–3.) The findings and recommendations were served on 2 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 3 days of service. (Id.) On February 24, 2020, plaintiff filed both a motion for an extension of time 4 to file objections and his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 5, 5 6.) 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 7 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 8 including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 9 supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 In his objections, plaintiff simply restates his belief that he is entitled to proceed in forma 11 pauperis in this action but fails to present any facts or analysis that meaningfully respond to the 12 magistrate judge’s reasoned analysis regarding his ineligibility to proceed in this action in forma 13 pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 14 Accordingly: 15 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections (Doc. No. 5) is granted 16 and his objections (Doc. No. 6) are, accordingly, deemed timely; 17 2. The findings and recommendations issued on February 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 4) are 18 adopted in full; and 19 3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the required $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of 20 service of this order. Any failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case 21 without prejudice to its refiling upon payment of the filing fee. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 27, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 The court notes that plaintiff did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis but nonetheless appeared to allege in his complaint that he was in imminent danger of harm. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge considered and rejected plaintiff’s eligibility to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception based upon the allegations of his complaint. (Doc. No. 4 at 3.) 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.