(PC) Matthews, II v. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, II, Case No.: 1:25-cv-0580 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE IN CORRECTIONS AND FULL WITHIN 30 DAYS REHABILITATION, (Docs. 2, 11) 16 Defendant.

18 Ivan Lee Matthews, II, is proceeding pro se in this action, in which he seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at North Kern State Prison.

20 Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Central District of California, which transferred the matter to this Court because the allegations involve conduct that occurred at a facility in the Eastern District of California. (Docs. 4, 5.)

23 The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff had at least three “strikes” prior to filing the action and that Plaintiff was not in imminent danger of serious harm at the time he filed the action. On May 19, 2025, the magistrate judge issued initial Findings and Recommendations, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8.)

27 Plaintiff filed objections, asserting that he was not the plaintiff in two cases identified by the 1 The magistrate judge again reviewed Plaintiff's litigation history and acknowledged the | two cases identified by Plaintiff involved a different individual by the name of “Ivan Matthew,” | based upon their different CDCR numbers. Therefore, the magistrate judge vacated the Findings | and Recommendations dated May 19, 2025. (Doc. 11 at 1-2.) Nevertheless, the magistrate judge | found Plaintiff remains subject to the three-strikes bar of Section 1915(g), and did not sufficiently | show he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaint in this | action. Ud. at 3-4.) Consequently, the magistrate judge again recommended the Court deny the || motion to proceed in forma paupers and require payment of the filing fee. (/d. at 5.)

9 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that || any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that “the | failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on | appeal.” Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not || file objections and the time to do so has passed.

14 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

15 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued June 6, 2025 (Doc. 11) are 18 ADOPTED in full.

19 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

20 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the full $405.00 filing fee for this action within 30 days of 21 the date of service of this order.

22 Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 9, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE