(PC) Van Huisen v. Chief of Staff

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-02815-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING CHIEF OF STAFF, et al., MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 3, 14) 17 Plaintiff Gregory Scott Van Huisen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On March 5, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) be denied because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 14 at 2) (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051−55 (9th Cir. 2007)). The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff be ordered to pay the required $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (Id. at 3.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) On March 11, 2024, | plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 15.) That | same day, plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but plaintiff's appeal was | dismissed by the Ninth Circuit on March 28, 2024. (Doc. No. 19.)

4 Plaintiff's one-page objections are difficult to decipher, and the court is unable to discern | on what basis plaintiff objects to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 15.)

6 | Plaintiff simply does not articulate any basis upon which the findings and recommendations | should be rejected.

8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has | conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the | undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and || proper analysis.

12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 5, 2024 (Doc. No. 14) are 14 adopted; 15 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is denied; 16 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 17 $405.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 18 4. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time 19 will result in the dismissal of this action; and 20 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 21 proceedings consistent with this order.

22 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 2, 2024 Da A. 2, axel 24 DALE A. DROZD 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE