(PC) Casey v. Haddad et al, No. 1:2021cv00855 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2021. Plaintiff to pay filing fee of $402.00 in full within 30-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIQUE ZAFIR CASEY, 12 No. 1:21-cv-00855-DAD-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 HADDAD, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 2, 11) 16 17 Plaintiff Dominique Zafir Casey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 17, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied 23 because it was determined that plaintiff had sufficient funds in his trust account to pay the filing 24 fee in full. (Doc. No. 11.) The magistrate judge provided plaintiff fourteen (14) days to file 25 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not filed any objections; 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 however, on June 21, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice in which he states that he made a mistake and 2 requested that the court take the $402 filing fee from his account.1 (Doc. No. 13.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s notice, 5 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 The court concludes that plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for this action 8 based on the available balance reflected in his inmate trust account statement (Doc. No. 6) and, 9 therefore, in forma pauperis status is not warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To the extent 10 plaintiff’s June 21, 2021 notice is a request that the court withdraw the filing fee payment from 11 his account, plaintiff is instead required to arrange for the payment of the filing fee with the 12 prison’s trust account office. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 17, 2021 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted 15 in full; 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 17 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to 18 pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action in full; 4. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of 19 20 this action without prejudice; and 5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: July 13, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 This notice was erroneously docketed as objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 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.
