(PC) Cross v. Kings County Sheriff

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JEROME LEE CROSS, ) Case No.: 1: 24-cv-0501 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, ) AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE 14 KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., ) FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS ) 15 Defendants. ) (Docs. 2, 5) ) 16 )

17 Jerome Lee Cross seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he alleges the 18 defendants are liable for violations of his civil rights at Kings County Jail. (Docs. 1, 2.) The 19 magistrate judge found Plaintiff is subject to the three-strikes bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), after 20 identifying the following cases that were dismissed prior to the filing of this action, for failure to state 21 a claim, or as frivolous: 22 1. Cross v. Kings County District Attorney’s Office, et al., 1:14-cv-1073-AWI-SAB (dismissed “for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief” on July 7, 2015); 23 2. Cross v. Kings County Sheriff Dept., et al., 1:14-cv-1253-JLT (dismissed without 24 prejudice as barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) on September 8, 2014); and 25 3. Cross v. City of Hanford District Attorney, et al., 1:14-cv-01755-KJM-SAB 26 (“dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim” on February 25, 2015).

27 (Doc. 5 at 2.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff fails to show he was in imminent danger of 28 serious physical injury, such that an exception to Section 1915 applies. (Id. at 3-4.) Therefore, the 1 || magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that 2 || Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee. (/d. at 4.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 4 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 5 at 4.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 5, citing 6 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and □□□ 7 || time to do so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 9 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 10 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 2, 2024 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED 12 in full. 13 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 14 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405 filing fee in full for this action within 30 days of the 15 date of service of this order. 16 4. Plaintiff's is advised the failure to comply with this order will result in □□□□□□□□□ 17 this action. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _ June 15, 2024 ( LAW pA LU. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28