1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, No. 2:23-cv-00383-DAD-DB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 14 GENA JONES, et al., MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. RECONSIDERATION 16 (Doc. Nos. 2, 11, 17, 20, 22)

17 18 Plaintiff Krzysztof F. Wolinski is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 20, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied 23 because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under

(g); and (2) the 24 allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” 25 exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 11); see Andrews v. Cervantes,

, 1051−55 (9th 26 Cir. 2007). The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff be ordered to pay the required 27 $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (Id. at 2.) The findings and 28 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 1 to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 3.)1 Plaintiff filed objections on August 2 16, 2023. (Doc. No. 25.). 3 In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully address the magistrate judge’s finding 4 that plaintiff is subject to the three strikes bar under

(g) and that he has not 5 satisfied the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). Rather, 6 plaintiff summarizes the legal standard for dismissals of actions and offers several legal 7 arguments going only to the merits of his claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections do not 8 provide any basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations. 9 In addition, on August 21, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 10 order dated August 9, 2023, contending that the court’s order was premature because the 11 magistrate judge had not yet ruled on plaintiff’s third motion for accommodation (Doc. No. 16). 12 (Doc. No. 20.) However, the magistrate judge has since denied that motion in an order dated 13 August 23, 2023, explaining for a third time that plaintiff has failed to present any reasons that 14 would entitle him to additional law library and ADA computer access and noting that plaintiff has 15 been successful in obtaining the assistance he needs as shown by his typed and legible filings. 16 (Doc. No. 21.) Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 17 20) as having been rendered moot by this order and the magistrate judge’s order dated August 23, 18 2023. 19 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 20 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 21 plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 22 supported by the record and proper analysis. 23

24 1 The court’s initial order dated August 9, 2023, which was entered on the docket on August 10, 2023, stated that no objections had been timely filed at that time. (Doc. No. 18 at 2.) After that 25 order was signed but before it was docketed, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 17.) Thereafter, on 26 August 16, 2023, plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations were filed. (Doc. 27 No. 19.) The court issues this amended order in order to grant plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his objections to the finding and recommendations, which have now been filed, and 28 to address plaintiff’s objections. 1 Accordingly, 2 1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time in which to file objections to the 3 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 17) is granted; 4 2. The findings and recommendations issued on April 20, 2023 (Doc. No. 11) are 5 adopted; 6 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 7 4. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 20) is denied as having been 8 rendered moot by this order and the court’s order dated August 23, 2023 (Doc. No. 9 21); 10 5. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 22) is denied as having been 11 rendered moot by this order; 12 6. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 13 $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 14 7. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time 15 will result in the dismissal of this action; and 16 8. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 17 proceedings consistent with this order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ August 30, 2023 Da A. 2, sel 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28