(PC) Stephens v. Shaffer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMIE STEPHENS, No. 2:24-cv-1785 DC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. SHAFFER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 3, 2025, the Court recommended 18 that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and plaintiff be ordered to pay the 19 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 11.) On March 10, 2025, plaintiff filed 20 objections, and the findings and recommendations are now before the district court. 21 On April 9, 2025, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Emergency Request,” citing Rule 22 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 15.) However, plaintiff’s request is 23 premature. The district court has not yet ruled on the findings and recommendations, so there is 24 no order to reconsider. Therefore, plaintiff’s request is denied. Further, plaintiff appears to seek 25 reconsideration of the finding that plaintiff did not qualify for the imminent danger exception to 26 the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) three strikes bar, now claiming he faced imminent danger based on an 27 incident that took place on March 20, 2025. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) However, as the pending 28 findings and recommendations explained: ] An inmate who accrues three strikes is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of serious 2 physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the exception, plaintiff must have alleged facts that demonstrate that he was “under 3 imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 4 2007) (“[I]t is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ 5 exception to § 1915(g).”). “[T]he imminent danger exception to the PLRA three-strikes provision requires a nexus between the alleged 6 imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the complaint.” Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 695 (9th Cir. 2022). 7 g | (ECF No. 11 at 2-3) (emphasis added). This action was filed on June 25, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) 9 | Therefore, an incident that took place on March 20, 2025, after plaintiff filed this action, could 10 || not constitute imminent danger at the time plaintiff filed the complaint in this action. 11 The findings and recommendations are before the district court for review. Plaintiff 12 | should refrain from filing any further documents until the district court addresses the pending 13 | findings and recommendations. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request (ECF No. 15) 1s denied. 15 16 || Dated: April 14, 2025 eq □□ cc’ . 17 ( / LAK ope CHI 500 KIM 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 /1/step1785.den2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28