(PC) Martines v. Torres-Rocha

E.D. California

(PC) Martines v. Torres-Rocha

DecidedJanuary 16, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-01563

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Martines v. Torres-Rocha ((PC) Martines v. Torres-Rocha) 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) Martines v. Torres-Rocha, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

11 ENRIQUE MARTINES, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01563 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA ) PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 14 ALFREDO TORRES-ROCHA, et al., ) PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS ) 15 Defendants. ) (Docs. 2, 8) ) 16 )

17 Enrique Martines is a state prisoner, and he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action in 18 which he alleges civil rights violations while housed at CSTAF Corcoran. (Docs. 1, 2.) The assigned 19 magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s Inmate Statement Report and noted “Plaintiff’s current available 20 balance in his inmate trust account is $1,254.51.” (Doc. 8 at 1.) The magistrate judge determined that 21 “Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this action,” and recommended the Court deny his application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 1-2.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 24 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 2.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate 26 judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 27 Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 1 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 2 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 23, 2024 (Doc. 8) are 4 ADOPTED in full. 5 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 6 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the filing fee of $405.00 in full within 30 days to proceed with 7 this action. 8 Failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in dismissal without prejudice. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. 11 |} ated: _ January 16, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 12 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 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 ENRIQUE MARTINES, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01563 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA ) PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 14 ALFREDO TORRES-ROCHA, et al., ) PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS ) 15 Defendants. ) (Docs. 2, 8) ) 16 )

17 Enrique Martines is a state prisoner, and he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action in 18 which he alleges civil rights violations while housed at CSTAF Corcoran. (Docs. 1, 2.) The assigned 19 magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s Inmate Statement Report and noted “Plaintiff’s current available 20 balance in his inmate trust account is $1,254.51.” (Doc. 8 at 1.) The magistrate judge determined that 21 “Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this action,” and recommended the Court deny his application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 1-2.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 24 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 2.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate 26 judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 27 Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 1 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 2 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 23, 2024 (Doc. 8) are 4 ADOPTED in full. 5 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 6 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the filing fee of $405.00 in full within 30 days to proceed with 7 this action. 8 Failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in dismissal without prejudice. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. 11 |} ated: _ January 16, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 12 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Martines v. Torres-Rocha, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-martines-v-torres-rocha-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack