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.)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?