(PC) Harris v. Madden et al, No. 1:2019cv01216 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING 8 , 9 , 10 Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed IFP; and ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Pay the Filing Fee Within Fourteen (14) Days signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/18/2019. (Jessen, A)
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 No. 1:19-cv-01216-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MADDEN, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. (Doc. No. 11) 16 17 Plaintiff Marvin Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 21, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 22 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 23 Nos. 8, 9, 10) be denied and that he be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed 24 with this action because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and 25 (2) the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint to do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious 26 physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 11.) Those findings and recommendations 27 were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 28 ///// 1 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On October 3, 2019, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 2 No. 12.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(C), this court has 4 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 5 plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 6 record and proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections fail to address the magistrate judge’s conclusion 7 that he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) since he has filed at least three 8 prior actions that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous. (See Doc. No. 9 11 at 2.) The court finds no legal basis upon which to question the magistrate judge’s findings 10 and recommendations in that regard. In his objections, plaintiff argues that he qualifies for the 11 “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to dismissal under § 1915(g) because 12 defendants “subjected him to an unlawful search of cell and taking of property,” but he does not 13 dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that these allegations are insufficient to trigger that 14 exception. (See id.) 15 Accordingly, 16 1. 17 18 adopted in full; 2. 19 20 The findings and recommendations issued on October 21, 2019 (Doc. No. 11) are Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 10) are denied; and 3. Within fourteen (14) days following service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 21 $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If plaintiff fails to pay the 22 filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
