(PC) Harris v. Docanto

E.D. California

(PC) Harris v. Docanto

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 10, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-00042·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVANTE B. HARRIS, 1:20-cv-00042-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Plaintiff, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA vs. PAUPERIS BE DENIED (ECF No. 2.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS Defendant.

Devante B. Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) In his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff reports that he received $52,000.00 in lawsuit settlements in the last twelve months. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Plaintiff’s prison trust account statement shows that on January 7, 2020, he had a balance of $39,183.65 in the account. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Under these facts, the court finds that Plaintiff can afford the $400.00 filing fee for this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied, and Plaintiff should be required to pay the statutory filing fee of $400.00 for this action in full. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on January 8, 2020, be DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action in full. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVANTE B. HARRIS, 1:20-cv-00042-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Plaintiff, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA vs. PAUPERIS BE DENIED (ECF No. 2.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS Defendant.

Devante B. Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) In his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff reports that he received $52,000.00 in lawsuit settlements in the last twelve months. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Plaintiff’s prison trust account statement shows that on January 7, 2020, he had a balance of $39,183.65 in the account. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Under these facts, the court finds that Plaintiff can afford the $400.00 filing fee for this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied, and Plaintiff should be required to pay the statutory filing fee of $400.00 for this action in full. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on January 8, 2020, be DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action in full. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(PC) Harris v. Docanto, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

(PC) Harris v. Docanto ((PC) Harris v. Docanto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related