Pcfranks V Luna
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 TOM FRANKS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00414 JLT EPG (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING
14 G. LUNA, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE
WITHIN 21 DAYS
15 Defendants.
(Docs. 6, 9, and 10)
16
17 Tom Franks asserts the defendants violated his civil rights while he was housed at Kern
18 Valley State Prison Corcoran and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 6.)
19 The magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s litigation history and found Plaintiff had three actions
20 dismissed for reasons that qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 9 at 2-3.) In
21 addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff does allege facts supporting the conclusion that
22 Plaintiff was imminent danger when he filed the action, because the allegations “concern past
23 events, not ongoing or expected danger.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge
24 recommended the Court deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and direct Plaintiff to pay
25 the filing fee. (Id. at 4.)
26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that
27 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 9 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiff that “failure
28 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id.,
1 | citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections,
2 | and the time to do so has passed. However, Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed in forma
3 | pauperis on July 11, 2025. (Doc. 10.)
4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case.
5 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations
6 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Because Plaintiff is subject to the three strikes
7 | provision of Section 1915(g) and does not show the imminent danger exception applies, he is not
8 | entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, the Court also denies Plaintiff's second
9 | motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 11, 2025 (Doc. 10) are
11 ADOPTED in full.
12 2. Plaintiffs motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 6, 10) are DENIED.
13 3. Within 30 days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL pay the
14 $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action.
15 Failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the dismissal of this
16 action without prejudice.
M IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 .
Dated: _ July 21, 2025
19 Cerin {Two
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28