(PC) Stephens v. Primm ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jimmie Earl Stephens, No. 2:22-cv-00330-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER 13 v. 14 Primm, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In a previous order, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 18 | recommendations and denied plaintiff Jimmie Stephens’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 19 | under the so-called “three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 11. Plaintiff moved to 20 | reconsider, claiming prison medical staff had not treated his health conditions, which might 21 | qualify him for an exception to § 1915(g) based on “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 22 | ECF No. 12. The court directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 23 | (CDCR) to file a response “indicating what treatment if any plaintiff is receiving, and what 24 | treatment is scheduled prospectively.” ECF No. 14.! ' The court amends its previous order on its own motion to clarify that Stephens’s motion for reconsideration was granted only to the extent the court found it necessary to request additional information from CDCR; the court did not reconsider its decision to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations on Stephens’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ] The CDCR has now responded with a summary of Stephens’s condition and treatment. 2 | ECF No. 15. After reviewing the CDCR’s response and Stephens’s reply at ECF No. 17, the 3 | court finds Stephens is not in imminent physical danger as a result of delays in his medical care. 4 | The court therefore declines to revisit its decision to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 5 | recommendation. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was correctly denied. See Leslie Salt 6 | Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he court may reconsider previously 7 | decided questions in cases in which there has been an intervening change of controlling authority, 8 | new evidence has surfaced, or the previous disposition was clearly erroneous and would work a 9 | manifest injustice.”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 230Q) (requirements for motions to reconsider, including an 10 | explanation of “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not 11 | exist or were not shown... or what other grounds exist for the motion”). 12 This action remains under referral to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all other pretrial 13 | purposes. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: December 9, 2022. 16 ee 7 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 45