(PC) Thomas v. Stringer

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD ROBERT THOMAS, 1:22-cv-00174-GSA-PC

ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY Plaintiff, ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CASE vs. AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Defendant. RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA (ECF No. 2.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

Floyd Robert Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 10, 2022, 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 declaration in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dated February 8, 2022, Plaintiff reports that he received $3,200.00 in Covid-19 federal relief in the last twelve months, of which approximately $400.00 remains. (ECF No. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff’s prison trust account statement shows that on February 5, 2022, he had a balance of $873.09 in the account. (ECF No. 6 at 1.) Under these facts, the court finds that Plaintiff can afford the $402.00 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 $402.00 for this action in full. Order Accordingly, the Clerk is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. AND Recommendations and Conclusion Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on February 10, 2022, be DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action in full within thirty days. 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 15, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE