From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephen v. Montejo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 29, 2021
2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2021)

Opinion

2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P

11-29-2021

JIMMIE STEPHEN, Plaintiff, v. E. MONTEJO, Defendant.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on plaintiff's third amended complaint (“TAC”). (See ECF Nos. 67, 74, 90.) Plaintiff alleges defendant Montejo was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

In an order filed November 30, 2020, Chief Judge Mueller granted defendant's motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and directed plaintiff to submit the filing fee if he wished to proceed with this case. (ECF No. 93.) Plaintiff then filed an appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal on November 16, 2021.

On November 23, 2021, plaintiff submitted the $400 filing fee. Accordingly, defendant will be directed to file an answer.

On November 22, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, plaintiff's submission of the filing fee mooted that motion and this court will not rule on it.

Within thirty days of the filed date of this order, defendant shall file an answer to the TAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Stephen v. Montejo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 29, 2021
2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2021)
Case details for

Stephen v. Montejo

Case Details

Full title:JIMMIE STEPHEN, Plaintiff, v. E. MONTEJO, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 29, 2021

Citations

2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2021)