Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEWIS ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General for 

the State of California, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 7, 11)

Plaintiff Lewis Anderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 6, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice. (Doc. 

No. 11.) As the magistrate judge noted in those findings and recommendations, this action only 

commenced on January 14, 2020, and a motion for summary judgment filed pre-answer and prediscovery will usually be judged premature, even if in technical compliance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) Moreover, plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with Local 

Rule 260(a), as it does not contain a Statement of Undisputed Facts that enumerates the evidence 

on which plaintiff is relying for his motion. The findings and recommendations were served on 

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 18 Filed 04/08/20 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

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days after service. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 7) is denied without prejudice; 

and

3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 18 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 2