Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02554/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02554-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Magistrate Judges
Defendant
Keith Prezell Thomas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH PREZELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 06-2554 LKK EFB P

vs.

MAGISTRATE JUDGES,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a

civil rights action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 6, 2006, the court

found that plaintiff was not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis because this court has

dismissed at least three of plaintiff’s lawsuits filed while he was a prisoner on the grounds that

they were frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim, and gave plaintiff 20 days to pay the

filing fee. The court also warned him that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed. On December 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Motion:

Requesting de novo review of plead[ings] [sic] that are precluding the plaintiff to proceed in

forma pauperis.” In it, plaintiff asserts that he was unfairly denied leave to amend complaints

filed in the cases this court relies upon in finding him ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis,

and that he is indigent and cannot pay the filing fee. Plaintiff’s filing is not responsive to the

Case 2:06-cv-02554-LKK -EFB Document 7 Filed 01/17/07 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

1

 As explained in the court’s December 5, 2006, order, court records show that before

plaintiff filed the complaint in this action, this court dismissed at least three of plaintiff’s

lawsuits filed while he was a prisoner on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious or

failed to state a claim. Accordingly, plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he is

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

2

order. He was given 20 days to pay the filing fee. He has failed to do so. Moreover, he still

does not allege facts suggesting that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.1

Finally, this is not the forum for plaintiff to complain that courts in earlier filed actions

erroneously denied him leave to amend. This court cannot review the proceedings in plaintiff’s

other cases. Plaintiff has neither complied with the court’s December 6, 2006, order nor

demonstrated that he may proceed in forma pauperis despite his litigation history. 

Accordingly, it hereby is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice.

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 twenty 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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 17, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02554-LKK -EFB Document 7 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2