Stephen v. Montejo et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2020 ADOPTING 74 Findings and Recommendations in full. The claims against defendants Shute and Dhillon are DISMISSED from the third amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiffs 62 motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED. Defendant's 77 motion to revoke plaintiffs IFP status is GRANTED. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JIMMIE STEPHEN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

E. MONTEJO,
Defendant.

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On April 2, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

21

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

22

and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Defendant has filed objections to the

23

findings and recommendations.

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. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the

26

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

27

Moreover, having reviewed the findings and recommendations the magistrate judge filed on June

28

12, 2020, the court is prepared to approve defendant’s motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma
1

1

pauperis (“IFP”) status. F&Rs, ECF No. 86, at 10 (recommending defendant’s motion to revoke

2

plaintiff’s IFP status be granted and plaintiff ordered to pay the filing fee if he wishes to proceed

3

because plaintiff has “unquestionably incurred far more than three strikes”); see Request for

4

Judicial Not., ECF No. 78, at 2–3 (citing plaintiff’s extensive litigation history).

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 2, 2020, are adopted in full;

7

2. The claims against defendants Shute and Dhillon are dismissed from the third amended

8
9

complaint without leave to amend;
3. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 62) is denied;

10

4. Defendant’s motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status (ECF No. 77) is granted; and

11

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

12

proceedings.

13

DATED: September 30, 2020.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2