Rosenburg

(PC) Van Huisen v. Rosenburg

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 2, 20242:24-cv-00055California1,026 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 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUSIEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00055-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE

14 CHUCK ROSENBURG, et al., DENIED 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 8 & 12 16 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

17

18 19 Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint, ECF No. 7, and two requests to proceed in 20 forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 8 & 12.1 However, after a review of plaintiff’s filings in this district, it 21 appears that plaintiff is a “Three-Striker” within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 22 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil 23 action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (i.e., may not 24 proceed in forma pauperis) “if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while 25 incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or…

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.