(PC) Ruth v. State of California
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EBER GENE RUTH, No. 1:22-cv-01166-JLT-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL (Docs. 3, 4) 18 The assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending 19 that, “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff not be allowed proceed in forma pauperis in 20 this action,” and that “Plaintiff be directed to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full if he wants to 21 proceed with this action.” (Doc. 3 at 4.) In response, Plaintiff filed what appears to be his 22 objections, which include a request for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 4.) 23 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 24 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes…