Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01551/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01551-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL HARPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. AYALA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-1551 JLT HBK (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE 

FILING FEE

(Docs. 2, 7)

Daniel Harper seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he alleges the 

defendants violated his civil rights while housed at Corcoran State Prison. (Docs. 1, 2.) Plaintiff 

requests to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The magistrate judge identified four actions 

that were dismissed for failure to state a claim and “qualify as a strike under Ninth Circuit law for 

purposes for § 1915(g).” (Doc. 7 at 5.) In addition, the magistrate judge found “there are no facts 

whatsoever that plausibly indicate Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at 

the time he filed the instant action, because Plaintiff alleges only that he “was improperly charged 

with a RVR stemming from the incident concerning his knee brace.” (Id.) Therefore, the 

magistrate judge found the imminent danger exception to Section 1915 does not apply and 

recommended the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 7 at 6.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 

Case 1:24-cv-01551-JLT-HBK Document 9 Filed 01/14/25 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

“failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights 

on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff 

did not file any objections and the time to do so has passed.

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

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on December 20, 2024 (Doc. 7) is 

ADOPTED in full. 

2. Plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma paupers (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay in full 

the $405.00 filing fee if he wishes to proceed with his action.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in 

the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-01551-JLT-HBK Document 9 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 2