(PC) Lopes v. California Department of Corrections

E.D. California

(PC) Lopes v. California Department of Corrections

DecidedFebruary 8, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-00162

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Lopes v. California Department of Corrections ((PC) Lopes v. California Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Lopes v. California Department of Corrections, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH LOPES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00162-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CORRECTIONS, et al., THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 15 TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE Defendants. DENIED 16 (ECF No. 2) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Joseph Lopes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Plaintiff initiated this action on February 7, 2022, together with a motion to proceed in 22 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff also included a certified 23 copy of his prison trust account statement. (ECF No. 2, pp. 3–5.) 24 Examination of these documents reveals that Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this 25 action. Specifically, the institution certifies that during the past six months, Plaintiff’s average 26 monthly balance was $4,549.31, and the average monthly deposits to Plaintiff’s account was 27 $546.81. Plaintiff’s current available balance in his inmate trust account is $23,837.69. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 2 District Judge to this action. 3 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED; and 5 2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $402.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this 6 action. 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 10 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 13 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 14 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

17 Dated: February 7, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH LOPES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00162-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CORRECTIONS, et al., THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 15 TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE Defendants. DENIED 16 (ECF No. 2) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Joseph Lopes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Plaintiff initiated this action on February 7, 2022, together with a motion to proceed in 22 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff also included a certified 23 copy of his prison trust account statement. (ECF No. 2, pp. 3–5.) 24 Examination of these documents reveals that Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this 25 action. Specifically, the institution certifies that during the past six months, Plaintiff’s average 26 monthly balance was $4,549.31, and the average monthly deposits to Plaintiff’s account was 27 $546.81. Plaintiff’s current available balance in his inmate trust account is $23,837.69. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 2 District Judge to this action. 3 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED; and 5 2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $402.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this 6 action. 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 10 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 13 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 14 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

17 Dated: February 7, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Lopes v. California Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-lopes-v-california-department-of-corrections-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack