Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Lewis Anderson is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay and motion to amend the complaint, 

filed April 13, 2020. (ECF Nos. 19. 20.) 

I.

RELEVANT HISTORY

On January 17, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 

recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed 

with this action. (ECF No. 4.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id.

LEWIS ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

XAVIER BECERRA, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY 

AND MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 19, 20)

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 21 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

at 4.) On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed written objections to the findings and recommendations. 

(ECF No. 8.)

On March 17, 2020, the District Judge denied Plaintiff application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 17.) 

Instead of paying the filing fee, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to stay and motion to amend 

the complaint on April 13, 2020. (ECF Nos. 19, 20.) Plaintiff’s motions should be denied. 

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to stay this action to allow him to file an amended complaint in order to meet 

the “imminent danger” standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In seeking to amend the complaint, 

Plaintiff contends that “new developments” after the filing of the original complaint have occurred to 

demonstrate he is in immediate danger of serious physical harm. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that 

on March 13, 2020, he was falsely charged with battery on a peace officer and placed in administrative 

segregation at California State Prison, Lancaster. However, Plaintiff contends that it was the officers 

who assaulted him in retaliation. 

In the original complaint, filed on January 14, 2020, Plaintiff alleged that on January 27, 2016, 

Defendant Wilson went before the California State Prison, Corcoran classification committee, 

removed Plaintiff’s conviction charge from inflicting a corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant that 

resulted in a traumatic condition, and replaced the conviction charge with three false and fraudulent 

charges of attempted murder, street gang activity, and transporting. (ECF No. 1, at 20.) Second, 

Plaintiff pleads that, in March 2016, Defendant Cantu increased Plaintiff’s disciplinary loss of credits 

from 30 days to 90 days because Plaintiff exercised his constitutional right to have Defendant Cantu 

perform their work assignment duties. (Id. at 23-24.) 

The determination of whether Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury is 

determined at the time of filing the complaint, and is not reevaluated based on allegations in an

amended complaint. See, e.g., Bradford v. Usher, No. 1:17-cv-01128-DAD-SAB, 2019 WL 4316899, 

at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019) (“imminent danger for purposes of § 1915(g) is to be measured at the 

time of the commencement of the action and that a determination that the imminent danger exception 

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 21 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has been satisfied need not be subsequently reexamined until and unless an appeal is filed.”); Simmons 

v. Wuerth, No. 1:19-cv-01107-DAD-SAB, 2020 WL 1621368, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (Section 

1915(g)’s imminent danger “exception applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the 

prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing”) (citing Andrews v. 

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original)). 

Because Plaintiff’s allegations in his motion to amend the complaint took place after the 

complaint was filed in this action and involve different individuals at a different prison, Plaintiff 

cannot demonstrate imminent danger at the time he filed the instant action. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s 

allegations now involve officials at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, which must be 

properly brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the 

appropriate individuals. Despite Plaintiff’s conclusory contention of a retaliatory connection among 

events at the two different prisons, he fails to allege facts demonstrating a pattern of misconduct 

evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury existed at the time he filed this action. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to stay and motion to amend the complaint should be denied.

III.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay and 

motion to amend the complaint (ECF Nos. 19, 20) be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 21 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 21 Filed 04/14/20 Page 4 of 4