Driver v. Harber-Pickens et al, No. 1:2019cv01775 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 2 Findings and Recommendations and ORDERING Plaintiff to Pay the Required Filing Fee in Order to Proceed with this Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/14/2020. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, JR., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. TAMARAH HARBER-PICKENS, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:19-cv-01775-DAD-EPG ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE REQUIRED FILING FEE IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION (Doc. Nos. 2, 5) 16 17 Plaintiff Billy Driver Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 22 recommending that be plaintiff be ordered to pay the required filing fee in full. (Doc. No. 2.) 23 The magistrate judge concluded that because plaintiff has accumulated at least three “strikes” 24 under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA”) and has not shown that he is in imminent danger 25 of serious physical injury, he is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.1 (Id. at 2–6.) The 26 1 27 28 The court notes that plaintiff did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, but instead merely alleged in conclusory fashion in his complaint that he was in imminent danger of harm. (Doc. No. 1 at 3–4.) 1 1 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 2 thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. (Id.) On February 3, 2020, plaintiff 3 filed timely objections.2 (Doc. No. 3.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 5 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 6 including plaintiff’s objections,3 the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 7 supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Accordingly: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 2) are 10 adopted in full; and 11 2. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the filing fee within forty-five (45) days of service of this 12 order or face dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court 13 order; and 3. Plaintiff’s motion for a ruling (Doc. No. 5) is denied as having been rendered moot. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 14, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 Plaintiff filed a motion for a ruling on the pending findings and recommendations just four days later, on February 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 5.) 3 28 In his one-page filing, plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations but presents no arguments or facts explaining his opposition thereto. (Doc. No. 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.
