(PC) Young v. Clark

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TYRONE POWELL YOUNG, Case No. 1:22-cv-01219-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION CLARK, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 15 Defendants. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED (ECF No. 2) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 19 Plaintiff Tyrone Powell Young (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 19, 2022, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) This action was transferred to the Fresno Division on September 26, 2022. (ECF No. 4.) On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement. (ECF No. 8.)

26 Examination of Plaintiff’s trust account statement reveals that Plaintiff is able to afford the costs of this action. Specifically, Plaintiff’s current available balance in his inmate trust account is $1,455.11. (ECF No. 8, p. 1.)

1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 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 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 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 Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: September 28, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE