(PC) Harris v. C. et al, No. 1:2021cv01684 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/10/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN HARRIS, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. THERESA C., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01684-AWI-SKO (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 6) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Marvin Harris, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate 20 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and 22 recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, 23 and that this action be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff has accrued more than three 24 “strike” dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the allegations in his complaint fail to show 25 that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Doc. No. 6.) The magistrate judge 26 provided Plaintiff 14 days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) 27 Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the time to do so has passed. 28 1 The Court notes Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on January 5, 2022 (Doc. No. 9); 2 however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal (Case No. 22-15086) for a lack 3 of jurisdiction on March 16, 2022. (See Doc. No. 12.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 6 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 6) are 9 ADOPTED in full; 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED; 11 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the filing 12 fee; and, 13 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this 14 case. 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2022 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 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.
