Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01171-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin Harris
Plaintiff
Torrs
Defendant

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORRS,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(Doc. No. 3)

Plaintiff Marvin Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, nor has he paid the $400.00 filing fee. The matter was referred to a 

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

On February 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the court not permit plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and that he be 

required to pay the filing fee in order to proceed with this action because: (1) he is subject to the 

three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint do not 

satisfy the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 3 at 

3–4.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4–5.) On 

Case 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/01/20 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

March 2, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 

4.) 

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

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 

plaintiff’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff does not address 

the prior cases he has filed which were cited by the magistrate judge as prior strike dismissals. 

Plaintiff merely reiterates the arguments presented in his complaint—that defendant acted with 

“deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger”—but he does not assert any basis that 

would support a finding that he faces “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Doc. No. 4 

at 3.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending 

findings and recommendations.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 3) issued on February 4, 2020 are 

adopted;

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to pay 

in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action; and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the 

dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01171-DAD-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 2