Haney v. Johnson et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/03/17 DENYING without prejudice 15 Defendants' Motion for Plaintiff to post security and Defendants Motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONTE L. HANEY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-1173-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

S. JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 22, 2017, the

20

magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

21

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations

22

were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings

23

and recommendations. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 26.)

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. The Court finds Plaintiff provided additional

26

information and clarification in his objections that adequately address the pertinent concerns

27

raised by the magistrate judge in the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has provided

28

information about the process for moving prisoners by bus between prisons, the schedule for
1

1

Plaintiff’s move between facilities, and stops the bus made at Folsom State Prison, High Desert

2

State Prison, and CSP-Sacramento to collect other prisoners on the bus who Plaintiff alleges

3

threatened him. (ECF No. 25 at 4–5.)1 Plaintiff also provided examples of an inmate in his

4

current facility threatening to stab him, the steps he took to twice report that threat, and what he

5

alleges was a failure by the prison officials to respond to that report or protect him. (ECF No. 22

6

at 3–4, 6, 8.)

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 22, 2017, are adopted in part;

9

2. Defendants’ motion for Plaintiff to post security (ECF No. 15) is DENIED without

10

prejudice; and

11

3. Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 15) is

12

DENIED without prejudice;

13
14

Dated: October 3, 2017

15
16
17

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s confusion or misstatement about the dates of his moves
between facilities is suspicious. (ECF No. 26 at 2.) Defendants, however, have provided
different time periods for Plaintiff’s time in Folsom State Prison, in one brief stating Plaintiff
spent “nearly three months” there and in another brief stating he spent “six weeks” in that facility.
(ECF No. 23 at 2; ECF No. 26 at 2.)
2