Thompson v. Adams et al

Filing 33

ORDER Relieving Plaintiff of Obligation to Respond to Motions and Requiring Defendants to SHOW CAUSE why Motions should not be Summarily Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 08/21/2015. Show Cause Response due by 9/11/2015.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DEWAYNE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
T. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00655-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER RELIEVING PLAINTIFF OF
OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO MOTIONS
AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTIONS SHOULD
NOT BE SUMMARILY DENIED
(Docs. 31 and 32)
FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff DeWayne Thompson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 6, 2013. This action
19 for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint against Defendants Felix,
20 Harmon, Pendergrass, Cruz, and Brodie (“Defendants”) for violation of the Eighth Amendment of
21 the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
22

On August 20, 2015, Defendants filed a motion seeking revocation of Plaintiff’s in forma

23 pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and a motion to stay the proceedings pending
24 resolution of their section 1915(g) motion.
25

Section 1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under

26 this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
27 facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the
28 grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

1 unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g) (emphasis
2 added). Defendants are seeking revocation of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status based on two
3 “strikes” which accrued after this suit was brought on May 6, 2013.1 Coleman v. Tollefson, __
4 U.S. __, __, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1761-63 (2015). (Doc. 31, Motion, Exs. B, C.)
Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status appears to lack any basis

5

6 in law or in fact, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), and the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
7

1.

8

Plaintiff is relieved of his obligation to file a response to the motions pending
further order of the Court;

9

2.

10

Defendants are required to show cause within fifteen (15) days why their motions
should not be summarily denied; and

11

3.

The failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

14

August 21, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The first “strike” accrued in 2008. (Doc. 31, Motion, Ex. A.)

2