(PC) Stephen v. Montejo ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMIE EARL STEPHEN, No. 2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. MONTEJO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 29, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations, ECF No. 130, and defendant has responded, ECF No. 132. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 27 findings and recommendations rely on Williams v. Paramo in determining this court must assess 28 the validity of Stephen’s “imminent danger” claim based on conditions at the time the complaint 1 || was filed. 775 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding courts of appeal must examine if a 2 || prisoner “allege[d] the continued existence of imminent danger” at the time of filing an appeal to 3 || qualify for the PLRA three strikes exception). The Ninth Circuit opinion establishing this 4 || timeline for district courts 1s Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 29, 2022, are adopted in full, with the 7 || one correction noted above; 8 2. Plaintiffs motion to amend the third amended complaint (ECF No. 114) is denied; 9 3. To the extent plaintiff moves for an injunction against non-defendant Dr. Aung Nay, 10 || that motion (ECF No. 124) is denied; and 11 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 12 || proceedings. 13 | DATED: November 14, 2022. 14 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28