Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02083/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02083-2/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

MIGUEL DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASSOCIATE WARDEN HURLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2083 GEB KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

As set forth in this court’s October 21, 2016 order, on at least three occasions lawsuits 

filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or malicious or 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

Diaz v. Vasquez, No. 1:12-cv-0732 SAB dismissed February 25, 2013, for failure to state 

a claim;

Diaz v. R. Diaz, No. 1:12-cv-1296 AWI SAB, dismissed September 4, 2014, for failure to 

state a claim; and

Diaz v. R. Diaz, No. 1:13-cv-0453 SKO, dismissed July 28, 2014, for failure to state a 

claim. 

Case 2:15-cv-02083-KJM-KJN Document 10 Filed 12/09/16 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

On December 19, 2007, plaintiff’s appeal from Diaz v. State of California, No. 2:04-cv2375 MCE JFM, was dismissed as not taken in good faith.1

 

Moreover, plaintiff did not allege any facts which suggest that he is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Further, on October 21, 2016, plaintiff was directed to pay the appropriate filing fee 

within twenty-one days, and warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. Twenty-one days have now passed, and plaintiff 

has not paid the court’s filing fee.2 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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). 

Dated: December 9, 2016

/diaz2083.1915g.fr

 

1

 In addition, in Diaz v. Sherman, No. 1:13-cv-1627 LJO MJS, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 

status was revoked on August 5, 2016. 

2

 Plaintiff did file an interlocutory appeal. However, no final judgment has yet been entered. “In 

general, only final judgments of a district court may be reviewed on appeal.” Burns v. Chandler, 

165 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 

794, 798 (1989)). A district court’s decision in a civil case is final if it “‘ends the litigation on the 

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” California v. Campbell, 

138 F.3d 772, 776 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)).

Case 2:15-cv-02083-KJM-KJN Document 10 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 2