Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00747/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00747-2/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

EBER G. RUTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00747-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF Nos. 2, 7)

Plaintiff Eber G. Ruth is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 23, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he has 

three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 7.) The Magistrate Judge 

also found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege that he faced an “imminent danger” that 

would qualify him for the exception to § 1915(g). (Id.) Rather than file objections, Plaintiff filed 

an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 8.) After the Ninth Circuit dismissed 

Plaintiff’s appeal, (ECF No. 11), the Magistrate Judge re-set the deadline for Plaintiff to file 

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 12.) That deadline has passed, and 

Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

Case 1:23-cv-00747-KES-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/17/23 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

Even if the Court construes the contents of Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal as an objection 

to the findings and recommendations, nothing in that interlocutory appeal convinces the Court 

that the Magistrate Judge erred. Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal states in a conclusory fashion that 

his prior “strikes” were not frivolous and that he is in imminent danger. Such conclusory 

statements do not suffice to bypass the gatekeeping function of § 1915(g).

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

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 

the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 23, 2023, (ECF No. 7), are 

adopted in full;

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

pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is denied; and

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 

shall pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails 

to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without 

further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00747-KES-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/17/23 Page 2 of 2