Newsom

(PC) Cross v. Newsom

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 16, 20202:19-cv-02462California1,543 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUINTIN R. CROSS, No. 2:19-cv-02462-WBS-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this federal civil rights action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Following a review of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff was 21 advised that he failed to demonstrate his indigency in order to be permitted to proceed in forma 22 pauperis. ECF No. 5. As a result, plaintiff was denied in forma pauperis status, but was granted 23 an extension of time in order to pay the filing fees for this action. ECF No. 5 at 2. 24 In the same order, plaintiff was advised that the complaint appears subject to dismissal for 25 failing to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Vaden v. 26 Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.