(PC) Martinez v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:2022cv00126 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 9/7/2022. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3 ) is denied. Within thirty (30) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, 12 13 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:22-cv-00126-ADA-HBK ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. No. 10) 14 C. PFEIFFER; F. HERRERA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action as a prisoner, proceeding pro 18 se, by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was 19 referred to the assigned United States magistrate judge, according to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 20 On February 17, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a findings and recommendations, 21 determining that Plaintiff qualified as a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 10. at 22 5-6.) The determination effectively precludes Plaintiff from seeking in forma pauperis status, 23 requiring him to pay the full filing fee for this action. (Id. at 3.) The findings and 24 recommendations further concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint lacked sufficient allegations to 25 satisfy the three strikes rule’s imminent danger exception. (Id. at 6-7.) The findings and 26 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 27 filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 7.) 28 On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff’s arguments that 1 the three-strikes rule is inapplicable, or in the alternative, that the “imminent danger” exception 2 applies in this case, are unpersuasive. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserted that the three-strikes rule may 3 be suspended if a prisoner is seeking in forma pauperis status, but he failed to cite to any 4 supporting authority. (Id.) Overall, the court finds no basis to overturn the findings and 5 recommendations. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 8 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 10 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 17, 2022 (Doc. No. 10) are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is denied; and 13 3. Within thirty (30) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay 14 the filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee 15 within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 7, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.