(PC) Alva v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES SCOTT ALVA, Case No. 1:24-cv-0686 JLT SKO

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 Defendant. (Doc. 15) 16 17 James Scott Alva1 filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 18 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in the action. (Docs. 1, 14.) The 19 magistrate judge found that “Plaintiff has accrued three or more strikes’” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 20 identifying the following actions that were dismissed prior to the filing of this action:

21 1. Alva v. Titsworth, et al., No. 2:18-cv-00476-JAD-PAL (Nev.), dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim on April 20, 2019 22 2. Alva v. Alva, et. al., No. 2:18-cv-00788-JAD-NJK (Nev.), 23 dismissed as frivolous on July 17, 2018

24 3. Cole v. State of Louisiana, No. 2:22-cv-01045-JAD-EDY (Nev.), adopting recommendation to dismiss for failure to state a claim on 25 September 15, 2022 26 (Id. at 3-4.) In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff does not qualify for the imminent 27 danger exception to Section 1915. (Id. at 4-5.)

28 1 Plaintiff also identifies himself as “jim-SCOTT:COLE.” (See Doc. 1 at 1.) 1 In response to the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 15), a 2 | letter to the Court (Doc. 16), and a document “rebutting” the Findings and Recommendations 3 | (Doc. 17). However, Plaintiff does not appear to dispute the determination that he has three 4 | strikes under Section 1915. In addition, the Court is unable to discern any factual allegations 5 || supporting a conclusion that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the 6 | complaint was filed. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 8 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes the 9 | Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the 10 | Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued September 13, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 14) is DENIED. 14 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the full $405 filing fee for this action within 30 days of the 15 date of service of this order. 16 Failure to pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action without 17 prejudice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 18, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28