# (PC) Michel v. Gipson

> District Court, E.D. California · November 14, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10048537

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** November 14, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10048537

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 FABIAN HANCY MICHEL, No. 2:21-cv-2178 WBS KJN P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 October 24, 2022, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed without
21 leave to amend because he failed to identify a cognizable due process violation in connection with
22 the December 6, 2020 rules violation report. (ECF No. 25 at 6.) On November 7, 2022, another
23 inmate prepared objections for plaintiff, which are signed by plaintiff, stating that because
24 plaintiff is receiving mental health care services at the EOP1 level of care and has been identified
25

1 The Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide for the California Department of
26
Corrections and Rehabilitation provides four levels of mental health care services: Correctional
27 Clinical Case Management System (“CCCMS”); Enhanced Outpatient (“EOP”); Mental Health
Crisis Bed (“MHCB”) and inpatient hospital care. Coleman v. Brown, 2013 WL 6491529, at *1
28 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013).
1 | as developmentally disabled, plaintiff did not understand what the court required in its prior
2 || screening orders. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff seeks leave to file a third amended complaint.
3 As noted in the court’s prior screening orders, it is unclear plaintiff can rectify the
4 || pleading defects by amendment. However, in an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted leave
5 || to submit a third amended complaint. However, in the interim, the findings and recommendations
6 || shall remain pending. If plaintiff fails to file a third amended complaint, the findings and
7 || recommendations will be referred to the district court for review and adoption.
8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date
9 || of this order to file a third amended complaint. Failure to file such pleading may result in the
10 || dismissal of this action.
11 | Dated: November 14, 2022
Aectl Aharon
13 KENDALL J. NE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
/mich2178.lta
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10048537. Public record. Not legal advice.