(PC) Duran v. Burns et al, No. 1:2021cv01290 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/2021. (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 ISSAC DURAN, 12 No. 1:21-cv-01290-NONE-HBK Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. No. 10) 14 J. BURNS, ET. AL., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Issac Duran initiated this action as a prisoner proceeding pro se by filing a civil 17 18 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 24, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was 19 referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 21 On October 26, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations1 22 recommending that the court deny plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 23 direct plaintiff to pay the full filing fee of $402.00 due to the funds available in his inmate trust 24 account. (See generally Doc. No. 12.) The findings and recommendations served on plaintiff 25 26 27 28 The October 26, 2021 findings and recommendations rescinded in part the magistrate judge’s October 25 findings and recommendations to the earlier recommendations accounted for funds “on negotiable hold” in plaintiff’s inmate trust account. (See Doc. No. 9 at 2.) The October 26 findings and recommendations did not account for the funds on hold. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge recommends denial of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion because plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the full filing fee in this action. 1 1 contained notice that objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 1, 5.) Plaintiff filed 2 objections that were docketed on November 5, 2021, and stated that “he has no problem to pay 3 filing fee of $402.00.” (Doc. No. 12 at 1.)2 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 6 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 26, 2021 (Doc. No. 10) are 9 adopted in full; 10 11 2. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee of $402.00 within twenty-one days of receiving service of process on this order. 3. Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this 12 13 case without further notice. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 16 November 19, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 28 The objections raise other issues not directly relevant to whether or not plaintiff is willing to pay the filing fee in this case. 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.
