Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02830/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02830-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL JAMES HICKS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

P. KAHLON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-02830 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On April 29, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that objections could be filed. The 

court granted plaintiff two extensions of time to file objections, he did not file any. See Prior 

Order (May 13, 2024), ECF No. 10; Prior Order (June 27, 2024), ECF No. 12.1

 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 

1

 While the Clerk’s Office recently updated plaintiff’s address, the court’s prior orders extending 

time for plaintiff to file objections were not returned and so the court presumes plaintiff received 

those orders. 

Case 2:23-cv-02830-KJM-CKD Document 14 Filed 11/05/24 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 

court[.]”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. See also Hicks v. Yeh, No. 22-06865, 2023 

WL 2762045, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) (finding “plaintiff has been presenting the same 

allegations regarding these medical conditions for more than five years” and has not 

“demonstrate[d] that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury”), appeal dismissed, 

No. 23-15486, 2023 WL 4308954 (9th Cir. June 30, 2023). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 29, 2024 are adopted in full. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 2, is denied. 

 3. Plaintiff is granted 14 days within which to pay the $405 filling fee for this action. 

Failure to pay the filing fee within 14 days will result in dismissal. 

 4. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, see ECF No. 7, is denied without 

prejudice to renewal after plaintiff pays the filing fee. 

 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial 

handling as provided by the local rules. 

DATED: November 4, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-02830-KJM-CKD Document 14 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 2