(PC) Wilkins v. Baughman et al, No. 2:2017cv01368 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/28/18 ADOPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Motion to Stay 12 is DENIED. Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file objections to the February 22, 2018 findings and recommendations. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Wilkins v. Baughman et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN W. WILKINS, 12 13 No. 2: 17-cv-1368-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 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 pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 20, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action be denied. Plaintiff has filed objections 22 to the findings and recommendations. For the reasons stated herein, the June 20, 2018 findings 23 and recommendations are adopted. 24 On February 22, 2018, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to 25 proceed in forma pauperis be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 11.) The 26 magistrate judge also recommended that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee of $400. (ECF 27 No. 11.) In the February 22, 2018 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge found that 28 in Wilkins v. Gonzales, 2: 16-cv-347 KJM KJN P, the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller found that 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff had three prior strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 11.) 2 In the pending motion to stay, Plaintiff requested that the Court stay this action pending an 3 appeal that would resolve the “ifp issue.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.) Plaintiff cited appeal no. 17-16274. 4 (ECF No. 13 at 2.) In the June 20, 2018 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge 5 correctly found that appeal no. 17-16274 was no longer relevant to Plaintiff’s status pursuant to 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 13 at 2.) 7 In his objections to the June 20, 2018 findings and recommendations, Plaintiff now claims 8 that his appeal of Judge Mueller’s order in case number 16-cv-347, revoking his in forma 9 pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), is pending. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff requests that 10 this action be stayed pending this appeal. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff has not shown good cause to 11 stay this action pending the appeal of Judge Mueller’s order. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 13 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 14 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 15 analysis. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 20, 2018 are ADOPTED in full; 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) 19 days from the date of this Order to file objections to the February 22, 2018 findings and 20 recommendations. 21 22 Dated: August 28, 2018 23 24 25 26 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.