(PC) Harper v. Campbell

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL HARPER, Case No. 1:24-cv-1549 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND 14 TAMMY CAMPBELL, et al., DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS 15 Defendants. (Docs. 2, 8, 10, 12) 16 17 Daniel Harper seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he alleges the 18 defendants violated his civil rights while housed at Corcoran State Prison. (Docs. 1, 2.) Plaintiff 19 requests to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The magistrate judge identified four actions 20 that qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 8 at 2.) In addition, the magistrate 21 judge found Plaintiff’s “allegations are insufficient to show that there is a real and imminent 22 threat to Plaintiff’s personal safety,” because Plaintiff alleges only that “he was not sent the 23 appeal responses in time, violating California Code of Regulations.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the 24 magistrate judge found the imminent danger exception to Section 1915 does not apply and 25 recommended the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Id. at 4.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 27 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 8 at 4.) The Court advised Plaintiff the “failure to 28 file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 1 (Id. at 4–5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Although 2 Plaintiff did not file objections, he filed a “motion to show facts of imminent danger” (Doc. 10), a 3 notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 11), and a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis 4 (Doc. 12). The Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on February 28, 5 2025 (Doc. 16) and its formal mandate on March 24, 2025 (Doc. 17). 6 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion to show imminent danger (Doc. 10) as objections 7 to Findings and Recommendations. However, Plaintiff does not address the specific findings of 8 the magistrate judge. (See generally id.) Rather, Plaintiff states that “every inmate in CSP 9 Corcoran is at [imminent] danger not only from the inmates but by the staff.” (Doc. 10 at 1.) He 10 contends the “filed the case against the Defendants for not wanting to get their staff to take their 11 jobs more serious[ly].” (Id.) Plaintiff does not dispute the determination that the allegations in his 12 complaint do not show imminent danger. He also does not dispute the magistrate judge’s finding 13 that the actions identified qualify as strikes under Section 1915(g). 14 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 15 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 16 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. For the same reasons, the 17 Court also denies Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed January 27, 2025. 18 Thus, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 10, 2025 (Doc. 8) are 20 ADOPTED in full. 21 2. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma paupers (Docs. 2, 12) are DENIED. 22 3. Plaintiff’s motion to show imminent danger (Doc. 10) is DENIED. 23 4. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay in full 24 the $405.00 to proceed with his action. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in 2 the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ March 24, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28