Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00299/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00299-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL CONGRESS MEMBER )

ENACTMENT OF PLRA, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-00299-AWI-SMS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC.9)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY

$250.00 FILING FEE WITHIN TWENTY

DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an

action alleging violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and

72-304. On March 22, 2005, the undersigned Magistrate Judge filed

findings and a recommendation that the Court deny Plaintiff’s

requests for injunctive relief from the requirement of paying a

filing fee and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or face

dismissal of the action. Plaintiff was granted thirty days within

which to file objections. The findings and recommendation were

served on all parties on March 22, 2005.

Case 1:05-cv-00299-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

On March 30, 2005, Plaintiff filed a request for an

extension of time within which to file objections. Although

Plaintiff made no showing of good cause for such an extension, in

view of the short time requested and in an abundance of caution,

the Court granted on April 5, 2005, one single extension of time

within which to file objections. On April 19, 2005, Plaintiff

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The

undersigned has considered the objections and has determined

there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based

on the points raised in the objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 22, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The Court FINDS pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) that

Plaintiff IS INELIGIBLE to proceed in forma pauperis in the

instant action, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an

order permitting him to proceed in forma pauperis; and

3. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an extension of

time; and

4. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary and

permanent injunctive relief to be able to proceed in forma

pauperis; and 

Case 1:05-cv-00299-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4) The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the $250.00 filing fee

within twenty days, or the action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00299-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 04/22/05 Page 3 of 3