(PC)Rasheed v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2009cv03560 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/19/10 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Tahee Abd Rasheed. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
(PC)Rasheed v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAHEE ABD’ RASHEED, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-3560 FCD DAD P vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2010, the court ordered plaintiff to pay the $350.00 fee for this 18 action within thirty days of the date of the order. The court explained to plaintiff that he could 19 not proceed in forma pauperis because he was barred from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 20 The thirty day period has since expired, and plaintiff has not paid the $350.00 filing fee in full. 21 Accordingly, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 41(b). 23 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 2 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 3 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 5 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: July 19, 2010. 7 8 9 10 DAD:sj rash3560.ffee 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.