Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06029/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06029-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MUHAREM KURBEGOVICH, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-6029-REC-SMS 

ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC.

3)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC.

2) AND TO ORDER PLAINTIFF TO PAY

THE FILING FEE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations against an unnamed postmaster and unnamed

deputy FBI director. 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. 

I. Background

The complaint and Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis were filed on July 29, 2004. On August 11, 2004,

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.

The action was re-designated as a regular civil action on

November 28, 2005, and was referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1The Court may take judicial notice of court records. Fed.

R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333

(9th Cir. 1993); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626,

635 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981).

2

Judge. On December 15, 2005, the Court issued an order dismissing

Plaintiff’s complaint and requiring Plaintiff either to file an

amended complaint or, in the alternative, to file a statement of

intention to proceed on the original complaint. On January 3,

2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of intention to proceed on the

original complaint.

However, after further review of Plaintiff’s in forma

pauperis status, the Court on its own motion has determined that

the order granting Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis petition was

issued in error. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no

event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this

section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). 

A review of the record of actions filed by Plaintiff in the

United States District Court for the Central District and

Southern District of California1 reveals that Plaintiff filed

three or more actions that were dismissed as frivolous, as

malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 4
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

See in the Southern District Kurbegovich v. McGrath, 02-cv-2477 (dismissed for failure to state a claim 

on December 30, 2002); see in the Central District Kurbegovich v. McGrath, 2:03-cv-1562-CBM-CW (dismissed

for failure to state a cognizable on April 1, 2003), and Kurbegovich v. Lockyer, 2:03-cv-1591-RT-CW (dismissed

for failure to state a claim on March 12, 2003). 

3

 The complaint was filed before legislation increasing the filing fee to $250.00 took effect.

3

might have been granted.2 Thus, Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g) and is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis

unless Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical

injury.

In the complaint filed in the instant action, Plaintiff has

not alleged any facts to suggest that he is, or was at the time

the complaint was filed, under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. Therefore, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma

pauperis, and Plaintiff is required to submit the appropriate

filing fee in order to proceed with this action.

Thus, the Court’s order of August 11, 2004, granting

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, IS VACATED.

Further, based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS

that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff be denied

leave to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. Plaintiff be ordered to submit the $150.003 filing fee

in full within fifteen (15) days; and

3. If plaintiff fails to pay the $150.00 filing fee in

full within fifteen (15) days, this action be

dismissed, without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to

the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

(15) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06029-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 4 of 4