Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01282/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01282-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seavon Pierce
Plaintiff
U.S. Congress
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

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. CONGRESS,

Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST

(Doc. Nos. 2, 4, 8, 16)

FILING FEE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil action. 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 September 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied

because he has suffered three or more dismissals constituting strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

and does not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under the imminent danger exception. (Doc. 

No. 4.) On September 26, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 5.) Based on new arguments raised by plaintiff therein, the assigned magistrate judge 

issued supplemental findings and recommendations, again recommending that plaintiff’s motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 8.) On October 17, 2016, plaintiff again filed 

Case 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 11/23/16 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

objections. (Doc. No. 9.) On November 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a request with this court, again 

challenging the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and alternatively 

requesting that this court set the filing fee in connection with this civil rights action at $5.00. 

(Doc. No. 16.)

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 finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit for the reasons stated by the magistrate 

judge.

Accordingly,

1. The September 13, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 4) and the 

September 30, 2016 supplemental findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 8) are 

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of the date 

of this order; 

4. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the action will be dismissed; and

5. Plaintiff’s request (Doc. No. 16) is denied as having been rendered moot by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2