(PC) Belyew v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al., No. 1:2021cv01374 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/8/2021. $402.00 filing fee due within twenty-one (21) days. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. 1:21-cv-01374-NONE-JLT (PC) LISA BELYEW, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Docs. No. 2, 8) Twenty-One Day Deadline 17 18 Plaintiff Lisa Belyew is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 23 (Doc. No. 8.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff has previously suffered three dismissals 24 counting as strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that she has failed to show that she is in 25 imminent danger of serious physical injury and therefore does not qualify under the exception to 26 that provision. 27 28 Plaintiff filed untimely objections on October 26, 2021, again stating that she feels unsafe at the prison where she is incarcerated and wishes to be transferred to another prison. (Doc. No. 1 11.) Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Watters allowed another inmate to listen at the door while plaintiff 2 addressed safety concerns, thereby putting plaintiff’s safety at risk. Plaintiff also alleges that 3 Officer Chavira made statements to her roommates––gang members––that also placed her in an 4 unsafe environment. However, plaintiff also indicates that CDCR is investigating these issues. 5 Although plaintiff anticipates that the gang members will lie during the investigation “just to get 6 me back on the yard to fight” (Doc. No. 11), she does not describe events or threats that plausibly 7 suggest she faces an “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Under these circumstances, 8 plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that the imminent danger exception to the three strikes 9 rule applies here. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 11 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 12 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued on September 29, 2021, (Doc. No. 8), are adopted; 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), is DENIED; 17 3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, plaintiff 18 shall pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If plaintiff fails 19 to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without 20 further notice. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 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.
