Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01687-5/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 

MICHAEL HICKS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BEHROZ HAMKAR et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1687 KJM DAD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On March 25, 2015, the magistrate judge filed and order and findings and 

recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF 

No. 29. Plaintiff has filed objections to the order and findings and recommendations, ECF No. 

32, defendants have filed a response to plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 35, and plaintiff has filed a 

reply, ECF No. 37. 

 There are no objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 

concerning defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status. The court has 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01687-KJM-DB Document 52 Filed 09/22/15 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

reviewed the file and finds those findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, they will be adopted in full. 

 Plaintiff’s objections, defendants’ response, and plaintiff’s reply all center on the 

magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 27, as 

mooted by plaintiff’s transfer to Mule Creek State Prison. The court construes the objections as a 

request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order. In his objections and his reply to 

defendants’ response, plaintiff raises arguments that call into question whether his motion for 

injunctive relief has in fact been mooted by his transfer or whether the alleged Eighth 

Amendment violation with respect to care for his arthritic condition is ongoing. Good cause 

appearing, the order will be vacated and the matter will be referred back to the magistrate judge 

for further proceedings and issuance of findings and recommendations on plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary injunction. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 25, 2015, are adopted in full; 

 2. Defendant’s motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status (Doc. No. 20) is denied; 

 3. Within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order, defendants are directed to file a 

response to plaintiff’s first amended complaint; and 

 4. The magistrate judge’s March 25, 2015 order denying plaintiff’s January 20, 2015 

motion for preliminary injunction is vacated and the matter is referred back to the magistrate 

judge for further proceedings and issuance of findings and recommendations on said motion. 

DATED: September 22, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01687-KJM-DB Document 52 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2