Bowell v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/26/19 ADOPTING 38 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 41 , 44 Motions for extension of time. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES BOWELL,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-0981 KJM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

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

19

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

20

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On May 1, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending

22

that the court granted defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. The

23

findings and recommendations were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties

24

that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.

25

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Defendants filed a reply.

26

By order filed July 24, 2019, this court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on

27

defendants’ motion. ECF No. 45. On August 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a response to the July 24,

28

2019 order. ECF No. 46. On August 21, 2019, defendants withdrew their motion to revoke
1

1

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status in light of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for

2

the Ninth Circuit issued the same day, Harris v. Harris, Case No. 16-55083, ___ F.3d ___, 2019

3

WL 3938883 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019). Accordingly, the findings and recommendations and this

4

court’s further briefing order are moot, as are plaintiff’s two motions for extension of time to pay

5

the filing fee, ECF Nos. 41 and 44.

6

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 1, 2019, are moot and therefore not

8
9
10
11

adopted;
2. Plaintiff’s May 20, 2019 and June 14, 2019 motions for extension of time, ECF Nos.
41 and 44, are denied as moot; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial

12

proceedings.

13

DATED: August 26, 2019.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2