Case 5:22-cv-00595-GW-MRW Document Filed 05/02/22 Page 1lof2 Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INMATE# CDC BJ9633 CASE NUMBER

Raymond Chatman ED CV 22-595 GW (MRW

PLAINTIFE(S)

v. . ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT Neil McDowell, et al., PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES

DEFENDANT(S)

IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the prisoner-plaintiff owes the Court the total filing fee of $350.00. An initial partial filing fee of $ must be paid within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed. Failure to remit the initial partial filing fee may result in dismissal of the case. Thereafter, monthly payments shall be forwarded to the Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Date United States Magistrate Judge IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees be DENIED for the following reason(s): L] Inadequate showing of indigency. Frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim L] Failure to authorize disbursements from upon which relief may be granted. prison trust account to pay the filing fees. Seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune L] Failure to provide certified copy of trust fund from such relief. statement for the last six (6) months. x] Leave to amend would be futile. C] District Court lacks jurisdiction. | This denial may constitute a strike under the [Other “Three Strikes” provision governing the filing of = prisoner suits. See O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d NAN 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Comments: See attached statement of decision.

April 29, 2022 Li / IL. Michael R. Wilner Date United States Magistrate Judge IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees is: LL] GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the prisoner-plaintiff owes the Court the total filing fee of $350.00. An initial partial filing fee of $ must be paid within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed. Failure to remit the initial partial filing fee may result in dismissal of the case. Thereafter, monthly payments shall be forwarded to the Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). L] DENIED. Plaintiff SHALL PAY THE FILING FEES IN FULL within 30 days or this case will be dismissed. DENIED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED immediately. L] DENIED, with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff may re-submit the IFP application and Complaint to this Court, if submitted with the Certified Trust Account Statement and Disbursement Authorization. Plaintiff shall utilize the same case number. If plaintiff fails to submit the required documents within 30 days, this case shall be DISMISSED. / -~——_ May 2, 2022 a A Date United States District Judge CV-73P (08/16) ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES

Case 5:22-cv-00595-GW-MRW Document 5 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:251

Plaintiff Chatman filed a response to the Court’s screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A. (Docket # 9.)

The response consists of a rambling, multi-page statement that appears to focus on Plaintiff’s claims of innocence regarding his underlying criminal conviction. Plaintiff did not attempt to re-plead any of his civil claims. He also did not address any of the obvious defects (naming parties in official capacity, Heck bar, immunity, and state actor issues) that the Court identified in the original screening order.

The Court previously gave this self-represented litigant an opportunity to amend his complaint and re-submit a legitimate pleading. Based on the virtually unintelligible submission, it is clear that Plaintiff cannot or will not overcome the deficiencies previously identified. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, it is recommended that that the IFP application be denied and the action dismissed without leave to amend.

Note: Plaintiff’s separate habeas corpus action (also challenging his criminal conviction) remains pending in this Court. Chatman v. McDowell, ED CV 22-559 GW (MRW) (C.D. Cal.)) Magistrate Judge Wilner recently issued an order in that action regarding Plaintiff’s response to the Attorney General’s dismissal motion.