(PC) Stephens v. Primm

Opinion

Jimmie Earl Stephens, No. 2:22-cv-00330-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER v. Primm, et al., 1S Defendants. In a previous order, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and denied plaintiff Jimmie Stephens’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under the so-called “three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 11. Plaintiff moved to reconsider, claiming prison medical staff had not treated his health conditions, which might qualify him for an exception to § 1915(g) based on “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” ECF No. 12. The court directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to file a response “indicating what treatment if any plaintiff is receiving, and what treatment is scheduled prospectively.” ECF No. 14.!

' The court amends its previous order on its own motion to clarify that Stephens’s motion for reconsideration was granted only to the extent the court found it necessary to request additional information from CDCR; the court did not reconsider its decision to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations on Stephens’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

] The CDCR has now responded with a summary of Stephens’s condition and treatment. ECF No. 15. After reviewing the CDCR’s response and Stephens’s reply at ECF No. 17, the court finds Stephens is not in imminent physical danger as a result of delays in his medical care. The court therefore declines to revisit its decision to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was correctly denied. See Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he court may reconsider previously decided questions in cases in which there has been an intervening change of controlling authority, new evidence has surfaced, or the previous disposition was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 230Q) (requirements for motions to reconsider, including an explanation of “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown... or what other grounds exist for the motion”). This action remains under referral to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all other pretrial purposes. DATED: December 9, 2022. ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE