(PC)Franks v. Luna

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TOM FRANKS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00414 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING G. LUNA, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 21 DAYS 15 Defendants. (Docs. 6, 9, and 10) 17 Tom Franks asserts the defendants violated his civil rights while he was housed at Kern Valley State Prison Corcoran and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 6.)

19 The magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s litigation history and found Plaintiff had three actions dismissed for reasons that qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 9 at 2-3.) In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff does allege facts supporting the conclusion that Plaintiff was imminent danger when he filed the action, because the allegations “concern past events, not ongoing or expected danger.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee. (Id. at 4.)

26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 9 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiff that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., | 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. However, Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed in forma | pauperis on July 11, 2025. (Doc. 10.)

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

5 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Because Plaintiff is subject to the three strikes | provision of Section 1915(g) and does not show the imminent danger exception applies, he is not | entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, the Court also denies Plaintiff's second | motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 11, 2025 (Doc. 10) are 11 ADOPTED in full.

12 2. Plaintiffs motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 6, 10) are DENIED.

13 3. Within 30 days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay the 14 $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action.

15 Failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this 16 action without prejudice.

M IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 .

Dated: _ July 21, 2025 19 Cerin {Two