(PC) Stevens v. Robinson, No. 1:2022cv00742 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 6/1/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 1:22-cv-00742-ADA-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12) ROBINSON, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 9, 2022, District Judge Dale A. Drozd issued an order adopting findings and 20 recommendations recommending that Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action 21 and instead be directed to pay the required filing fee in full because: (1) she is subject to the three 22 strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations in her complaint do not satisfy the 23 “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (ECF No. 7.) The Court 24 ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days, warning that failure to do so would 25 result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the 26 filing fee, and the time to do so has expired. 27 28 On October 26, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 9.) 1 1 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations on November 11, 2022. 2 (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff’s objections are nonresponsive to the issue at hand, namely, that Plaintiff 3 failed to comply with District Judge Drozd’s order to pay the filing fee. (Id.) 4 Plaintiff subsequently filed two renewed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 5 Nos. 10, 12). For the reasons stated in the Court’s previous order directing Plaintiff to pay the 6 filing fee, Plaintiff’s renewed motions are denied. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 8 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 9 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are 10 supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED: 12 1. 13 14 adopted in full; 2. 15 16 Plaintiff’s renewed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 10, 12), are denied; 3. 17 18 The findings and recommendations issued on October 26, 2022 (ECF No. 9), are This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
