Bontemps v. Arya et al
Filing
14
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 05/31/18 ORDERING the clerk of court to assign a district judge to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that the court find plaintiff has accrued 3 strikes under 28 USC 191 5(g) for the reasons set forth in the court's 06/16/17 order 4 . The court find plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, at the time he filed his complaint, he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, for the reasons set forth in the 7/06/17 order 7 . The court deny plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP 6 . Motion 6 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-00993 DB P
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
ARYA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On May 11, 2017, he filed this civil rights
17
18
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an order dated June 16, 2017, this court found that plaintiff had
19
accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and, to proceed with this action, he must either
20
pay the $400 fee or seek to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by demonstrating he was in
21
imminent danger of serious physical injury. (See ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to
22
proceed IFP. (ECF No. 6.) The court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate he was in imminent
23
danger, denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, and ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee if he
24
wished to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 7.) When plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, on
25
August 2, 2017, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. (ECF No. 8.)
Plaintiff filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal vacated this court’s dismissal of this action
26
27
based on its decision in Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017). (ECF No. 13.)
28
////
1
1
In Williams, issued November 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a
2
magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss a prisoner's case for failure to state a claim at the
3
screening stage where the plaintiff had consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction and defendants
4
had not yet been served. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Specifically, the Ninth
5
Circuit held that “28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and defendants
6
named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction may vest in a
7
magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court would otherwise hear.” Id. at
8
501.
9
Here, defendants were not served at the time the court issued its orders finding plaintiff
10
had suffered three strikes, finding plaintiff had not demonstrated imminent danger, and
11
dismissing this case. Accordingly, the undersigned magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to make
12
these determinations and to dismiss this action based solely on plaintiff's consent.
13
In light of the holding in Williams, this court will recommend to the assigned district
14
judge that he or she find plaintiff has suffered three strikes, for the reasons set forth in the June
15
16, 2017 order, and find that plaintiff has failed to show that, at the time he filed his complaint, he
16
was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, for the reasons set forth in the July 6, 2017
17
order.
18
19
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to assign a district judge to
this case.
20
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
21
1. The court find plaintiff has accrued three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the
22
23
reasons set forth in the court’s June 16, 2017 order (ECF No. 4);
2. The court find plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, at the time he filed his complaint, he
24
was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, for the reasons set forth in the July
25
6, 2017 order (ECF No. 7); and
26
3. The court deny plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 6).
27
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
28
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
2
1
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
2
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
3
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
4
time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
5
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
6
DATED: May 31, 2018
7
8
/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/bont0993.3 strikes fr
26
27
28
3
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?