(PC) Heizelman v. Biden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ROBERT HEIZELMAN et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01140-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING 14 PRESIDENT BIDEN, et al., ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.A § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) 15 Defendants. Docs. 2, 8, 9, 10 16

17 18 Plaintiff Robert Heizelman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his complaint filed 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 Doc. 2. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On October 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 (“F&R”), recommending denial of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because 24 plaintiff had at least three strikes.1 Doc. 8. The magistrate judge additionally recommended 25 dismissal of plaintiff’s case as frivolous and lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. Id. at 6–7. 26

27 1 A dismissal of a prior case counts as a strike when the dismissal of the action was for frivolity, maliciousness, or for failure to state a claim, or an appeal was dismissed for the same reasons. 28 Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020) (citing 28 U.S.C.A § 1915(g)). 1 | The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided that any objections 2 || were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff timely filed objections.” 3 | Doc. 9. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. Doc. 10. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 5 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 6 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 7 Plaintiff’s nineteen-page, handwritten objections do not meaningfully address the 8 | reasoning in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See generally Doc. 9. 9 | Plaintiff does not refute the magistrate judge’s finding that he has three cases constituting strikes 10 | under the PLRA and merely insists that his implausible claims regarding President Biden are true. 11 | 7d. at 6. Plaintiffs claims lack any basis in law or fact and are also duplicative of a previously 12 || dismissed case in the Southern District of California (Heizelman v. Biden, Case No. 3:23-cv- 13 | 01185-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.)). This action is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's 14 || request for counsel is denied as moot. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 18, 2024, Doc. 8, are 17 ADOPTED IN FULL; 18 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED; 19 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; 20 4. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 10) is DENIED as moot; and 21 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 22 23 94 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 25 Dated: _ March 3, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28 | 2 Plaintiff signed his objections on October 24, 2024. Doc. 9 at 19.