Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02079/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02079-7/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRON A. PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FUJIOKA, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv02079 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REVOKE 

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS 

(Document 36)

Plaintiff Myron A. Payne (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 23, 2013, and the 

Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis on January 17, 2014. Defendants 

filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status on February 20, 2015. The matter 

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

On July 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendants’ motion be granted, and that the order granting in forma pauperis status be vacated. 

The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on August 3, 2015. 

Defendants did not file a reply.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis.

Case 1:13-cv-02079-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff argues, without specificity, that three of the four cases cited by the Magistrate 

Judge are not strikes. He simply states that cases dismissed for reasons other than frivolousness, 

maliciousness, or failure to state a claim are not strikes. Plaintiff is correct in a general sense, 

though he fails to recognize that the Ninth Circuit, in explaining what constitutes a strike under 

1915(g), has instructed the Courts to analyze the reasons underlying the dismissal. Therefore, 

what counts as a strike is not as narrow as Plaintiff suggests.

Plaintiff also faults the Magistrate Judge for not addressing his argument that the PLRA 

is unconstitutional. However, the Magistrate Judge cited Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1123 

(9th Cir. 2005), where the Ninth Circuit recognized that it had rejected an argument that the 

PLRA is facially unconstitutional. While Andrews noted that the PLRA may be unconstitutional 

as applied where a court improperly counted strikes, this is not an issue here.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 1, 2015, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (Document 26) 

is GRANTED;

3. The order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Document 

8) is VACATED; and

4 Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of 

service of this order to continue with this action. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss 

this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02079-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2