Moten v. Eastern District Courthouse of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SHARROD MOTEN, No. 1:24-cv-01387-SAB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS EASTERN DISTRICT COURTHOUSE OF 13 CALIFORNIA, et al., Docs. 3, 7, 9

14 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 15

16 17 On November 13, 2024, plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Eastern District Courthouse of California, Judge 19 Kimberly J. Mueller, Judge Gary S. Austin, Judge Christopher D. Baker, Judge Sheri Pym, Judge 20 Barbara A. McAuliffe, Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, and Judge David O. Carter. Doc. 1. 21 On February 10, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be 23 denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and directing plaintiff to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full 24 to proceed with the action. Doc. 9. The assigned magistrate judge found plaintiff subject to the 25 three strikes bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. The findings and recommendations were served on 26 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 27 days after service. Id. Plaintiff did not file objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. 28 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 2 | the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and 3 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The magistrate judge 4 | correctly determined that plaintiff was precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s prior strikes include the district court’s dismissals of plaintiffs 6 | actions in Moten v. Calderon, No. 2:23-cv-02595-DOC-SP (C.D. Cal.), and Moten v. Phiefer, No. 7 | 2:23-cv-06355-DOC-SP (C.D. Cal.), for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals’ 8 | dismissal of plaintiff's appeal in Moten v. Abrams, No. 2:23-cv-06359-GW (C.D. Cal.), as 9 | frivolous. See El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal of an 10 || appeal as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim constitutes a strike under 28 U.S.C. 11 | § 1915¢g)). 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 10, 2025, Doc. 9, are adopted in 14 full; 15 2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma 16 pauperis, Docs. 3, 7, are denied; and 17 3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay 18 the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If plaintiff fails to pay the filing 19 fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without further notice. 20 21 92 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 23 Dated: _ March 19, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28