Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00039-2/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

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. PICKERING, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. Nos. 2, 7)

Plaintiff Sedric Eugene Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 6, 2020, plaintiff commenced this action by 

filing a complaint (Doc. No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). 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 January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that he be 

required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action because: (1) he is subject 

to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint 

do not satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. 

No. 7 at 2.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 

Case 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/16/20 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

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On 

January 24, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. 

No. 9.) However, in his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates his request that he be granted in 

forma pauperis status “based off the fact that this case do[es] have merit, in which, as the next 

stage of exhausting my administrative remedies beyond the ‘California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation . . .” and he is unable to pay the initial filing fee. (Id. at 1–2.) 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 

recommendations. Furthermore, plaintiff’s objections do not address the magistrate judge’s 

finding that the allegations set forth in plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to trigger the 

“imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception under § 1915(g).

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

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 

plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 7) issued on January 10, 2020, are 

adopted in full;

2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 

$400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action;

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/16/20 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. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time will result in the 

dismissal of this action; and

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

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00039-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 3