From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephen v. Montejo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)

Opinion

2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P

11-14-2022

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


ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 29, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 130, and defendant has responded, ECF No. 132.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The findings and recommendations rely on Williams v. Paramo in determining this court must assess the validity of Stephen's “imminent danger” claim based on conditions at the time the complaint was filed. 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding courts of appeal must examine if a prisoner “allege[d] the continued existence of imminent danger” at the time of filing an appeal to qualify for the PLRA three strikes exception). The Ninth Circuit opinion establishing this timeline for district courts is Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 29, 2022, are adopted in full, with the one correction noted above;

2. Plaintiff's motion to amend the third amended complaint (ECF No. 114) is denied;

3. To the extent plaintiff moves for an injunction against non-defendant Dr. Aung Nay, that motion (ECF No. 124) is denied; and

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.


Summaries of

Stephen v. Montejo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 14, 2022
2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)
Case details for

Stephen v. Montejo

Case Details

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

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 14, 2022

Citations

2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022)