United States District Court, E.D. California
June 12, 2014
JOHN R. DYNES, Plaintiff,
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 2]
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff John R. Dynes is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on June 9, 2014. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Section 1915(g) provides that "[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action... under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." Plaintiff is subject to section 1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is, at the time the complaint is filed, under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds that Plaintiff does not meet the imminent danger exception.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action be DENIED; and
2. This action be DISMISED, without prejudice, to refilling with the submission of the $400.00 filing fee in full.
These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 fifteen (15) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The 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.