Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01158/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01158-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN DOE, CLERK OF COURT,

Defendant. 

 /

1:06-cv-01158-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DE

NOVO REVIEW AS MOOT AND

ADDRESSING OBJECTION (Docs. 7

and 8)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BASED ON

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PAY THE

$350.00 FILING FEE (Doc. 6)

Plaintiff Keith Thomas (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local Rule 72-302.

On August 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within fifteen days. Plaintiff

did not file an objection and the Findings and Recommendations was

adopted in full on October 6, 2006. On October 27, 2006, plaintiff

Case 1:06-cv-01158-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 11/20/06 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

filed a motion seeking a de novo review of his complaint and an

objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 

This Court conducted a de novo review of this case, including

plaintiff’s complaint, when it considered the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations filed August 31, 2006. Plaintiff is

suing the unidentified Clerk of Court for the Kings County Superior

Court. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State

Prison-Sacramento. Plaintiff’s claim against the Clerk of Court

stems from the Clerk’s alleged failure to process plaintiff’s civil

rights suit concerning events that occurred when plaintiff was at

California State Prison-Corcoran. Plaintiff’s complaint in this

action does not even arguably make a showing that plaintiff was in

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of the

filing of this action and plaintiff is therefore ineligible to

proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff’s motion for a de novo review is moot in light of the

Court’s order of October 6, 2006, and shall be denied.

On October 27, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection to the

Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff’s objection is untimely.

In addition, it is utterly devoid of grounds that would have

persuaded the Court not to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations in full. Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g) and his operative pleading is subject to review in

determining whether or not plaintiff is eligible to proceed in

forma pauperis. The Court is under no obligation to provide

plaintiff with the opportunity to amend his complaint prior to

giving effect to the mandate of section 1915(g).

///

Case 1:06-cv-01158-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 11/20/06 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

On October 6, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to pay the $350.00

filing fee in full within fifteen days. More than fifteen days

have passed and plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 1915(g), this action shall be

dismissed, without prejudice.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a de novo review of his complaint,

filed October 27, 2006, is denied as moot; 

2. Plaintiff’s untimely objection, filed October 27, 2006,

is deemed addressed; and

3. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to pay the $350.00 filing fee in

compliance with the Court’s order of October 6, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01158-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 3