Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00840/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00840-4/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00840-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SETTLEMENT AND OTHER 

MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(ECF No. 32)

Plaintiff Terry Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 8, 2020 filing, requesting a settlement and 

other miscellaneous relief. (ECF No. 32.) In his filing, Plaintiff primarily appears to be 

requesting a monetary settlement for this action. Plaintiff has also attached a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus asking the Court to strike a 12-year enhancement on his current sentence and allow 

him to be released on probation. Plaintiff also references other pending civil rights and habeas 

corpus actions that are not currently before the undersigned. (Id.)

As Plaintiff was previously informed, to the extent he is asking the Court to set this matter 

for a settlement conference, the request is premature. Plaintiff is reminded that the Court is 

required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 

officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or 

any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As the Court has 

not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it may proceed on any cognizable 

Case 1:19-cv-00840-ADA-BAM Document 33 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 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

2

claims, and no defendant has yet been served, this action is not ready to set for a settlement 

conference.

If Plaintiff is instead asking that the Court settle the case with him, the request is denied as 

improper. Any settlement of the potential claims in this action would need to occur between the 

parties, not between Plaintiff and the Court.

Plaintiff’s request for relief relating to his remaining sentence is unrelated to his claims in 

this action, and are more appropriately brought in a separate habeas corpus action, or possibly in 

one of the habeas corpus actions Plaintiff has already filed. Similarly, any claims Plaintiff has 

filed in other civil rights actions do not belong in this case. Plaintiff should limit allegations in 

his filings to the claims he is attempting to bring in this case—Plaintiff may not bring all of his 

grievances against the courts and the prison generally, all in one case.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s filing includes both a form habeas corpus petition and a 

form civil rights complaint. As Plaintiff’s intention in filing all of these documents together is not 

clear, the Court does not find that Plaintiff is attempting to file an amended complaint at this time. 

However, Plaintiff is reminded again that he must file a motion to amend the complaint before 

filing an amended complaint, and once Plaintiff has filed the motion to amend, no additional 

motions to amend may be filed until the original motion is ruled upon by the Court. Plaintiff is 

cautioned that it may take time for the Court to rule on his motion to amend (or another motion he 

files) because, due to this Court’s heavy caseload, delays are inevitable. Plaintiff’s fifth amended 

complaint is currently pending before the Court, and will be screened in due course.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for settlement and other miscellaneous relief, (ECF No. 

32), is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00840-ADA-BAM Document 33 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 2