Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.A. RIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00781-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS

MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND TO

DISMISS CASE 

(ECF No. 57)

Plaintiff Donte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint against Defendants Gonzaga, Cobb, Zaragoza, and Valero for

interfering with incoming mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment;

against Defendant Cobb for interfering with outgoing mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights

under the First Amendment; and against Defendants Estrada, Cobb, Valero, and Zaragoza

for violating Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in connection with

Plaintiff’s mail.

In lieu of an answer, on March 21, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to revoke

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss the case (Motion to Revoke and Dismiss,

ECF No. 57) on grounds Plaintiff is a “three strikes” litigant, i.e., has brought three or more

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 62 Filed 07/16/12 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

prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

On April 19, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty day extension of

time to pay the filing fee. (Order Granting Extension, ECF No. 60.) 

On May 3, 2012, Plaintiff paid in full the $350 filing fee. (Receipt No.

CAE100018795.) 

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Revoke and Dismiss is moot. It

is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Revoke and Dismiss (ECF No.

57) be DENIED as moot. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

any party 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.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days

after service of the objections. The parties are 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: July 14, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 62 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 2