Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00646/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00646-3/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

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ANDREW ZEPP, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-00646-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DISMISSING 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. Nos. 9, 11, 14)

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought 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 15, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9) be denied 

because he has accumulated more than three “strike” dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 

his complaint failed to contain allegations showing that he is in imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of 

service. (Id. at 2–3.)

Case 1:20-cv-00646-DAD-JLT Document 15 Filed 06/08/20 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

Plaintiff filed timely objections and a second application to proceed in forma pauperis on 

June 2, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 13, 14.) In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates the allegations

contained in his complaint. (Doc. No. 13 at 2–3.) He fails, however, to address the magistrate 

judge’s findings about his prior strike dismissals and his failure to show imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. Similarly, his second application to proceed in forma pauperis merely 

replicates the information contained in his first application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See 

Doc. Nos. 9, 14.) 

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, including plaintiff’s 

objections, 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 15, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 9, 14) are denied;

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the filing 

fee; and,

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00646-DAD-JLT Document 15 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 2