Williams v. Passini et al
Filing
12
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/20/18. The court DECLINES to adopt the Findings and Recommendations 8 and instead REFERS the matter back to the Magistrate judge for further proceedings to develop the record as necessary for consideration of whether the information contained in Plaintiff's objections support the "imminent danger" exception. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LANCE WILLIAMS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-1362 KJM CKD P
v.
ORDER
MATILDA PASSINI, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking
17
18
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as
19
provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 19, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
20
21
(“Findings”), which were served on Williams, containing notice that any objections must be filed
22
within fourteen days. Findings, ECF No. 8. The Findings recommend dismissing Williams’ civil
23
rights complaint filed July 7, 2017, for not paying a $400 filing fee within the mandated 14-day
24
period; Williams must pay because he was stripped of his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status for
25
having three or more prior actions dismissed as “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim.”
26
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1996); Findings at 1. On March 30, 2018, Williams timely filed objections.
27
ECF No. 9. Williams argues that because he was, and is currently, “under imminent danger at the
28
/////
1
1
time of complaint[] filing, he qualifies for an exception that grants IFP status if a prisoner is under
2
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. at 1.
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
4
this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist.,
5
708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court presumes findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.
6
United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). Having reviewed the file, the court finds
7
Williams’ objections, while unverified, raise new information that may change the magistrate
8
judge’s recommendation because he appears to provide facts plausibly supporting § 1915(g)’s
9
“imminent danger exception.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007); see,
10
e.g., Objections at 1, 3, 5–6, 8–9, 11–12 (alleging assault and threats of injury by a correctional
11
officer and inmates). While noting that the objections were not before the magistrate judge, the
12
court DECLINES to adopt the findings and recommendations and instead REFERS the matter
13
back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings to develop the record as necessary for
14
consideration of whether the information contained in plaintiff’s objections support the
15
“imminent danger” exception.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
This resolves ECF No. 8.
18
DATED: August 20, 2018.
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?