James Davenport v. C. Pfeiffer, et al.

E.D. California

James Davenport v. C. Pfeiffer, et al.

DecidedNovember 10, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00997

StatusUnknown

This text of James Davenport v. C. Pfeiffer, et al. (James Davenport v. C. Pfeiffer, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Davenport v. C. Pfeiffer, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES DAVENPORT, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00997-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., (Docs. 2 & 9) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff James Davenport seeks to hold defendants liable for violations of his civil rights. 18 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be 21 denied because plaintiff has accrued three or more strikes and does not qualify for the imminent 22 danger exception pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 8.) The magistrate judge advised that the 23 “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” 24 (Id. at 4-5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). Plaintiff did not file 25 objections.1 26

27 1 Following service of the findings, Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 9.) On September 9, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff additional time to file objections to the findings, directing him to 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 4 | ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued August 14, 2025 (Doc. 8) are ADOPTED 6 in full. 7 2. Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2 & 9) are DENIED. 8 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the full $405 filing fee for this action within 30 days of the date 9 of service of this order. Failure to pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this 10 action. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _November 7, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES DAVENPORT, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00997-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., (Docs. 2 & 9) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff James Davenport seeks to hold defendants liable for violations of his civil rights. 18 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be 21 denied because plaintiff has accrued three or more strikes and does not qualify for the imminent 22 danger exception pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 8.) The magistrate judge advised that the 23 “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” 24 (Id. at 4-5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). Plaintiff did not file 25 objections.1 26

27 1 Following service of the findings, Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 9.) On September 9, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff additional time to file objections to the findings, directing him to 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 4 | ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued August 14, 2025 (Doc. 8) are ADOPTED 6 in full. 7 2. Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2 & 9) are DENIED. 8 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the full $405 filing fee for this action within 30 days of the date 9 of service of this order. Failure to pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this 10 action. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _November 7, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

James Davenport v. C. Pfeiffer, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-davenport-v-c-pfeiffer-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack