Bowell v. CSP Substance Abuse Treatment Facility At Corcoran, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER Denying Objections; ORDER Denying 11 Motion for Stay of Proceedings signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 08/09/2011. Amended Complaint due by 9/12/2011.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAMES BOWELL, 9 10 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02336-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CALIFORNIA STATE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY AT CORCORAN, (DOC. 11) et al., Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff James Bowell (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 15, 2010, 19 Plaintiff filed his complaint. On June 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 20 screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. 21 Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order and 2) 22 Plaintiff’s motion for stay of the proceedings, filed June 16, 2011. Doc. 11. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 governs magistrate judge jurisdiction. Rule 72(a) 24 states in pertinent part: “The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and 25 modify or set aside any part of the [magistrate judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous or is 26 contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (emphasis added); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under 27 the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling 28 “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 1 1 made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 2 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). 3 Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent review of purely 4 legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id. 5 Here, Plaintiff contends that his allegations are sufficient for medical malpractice. 6 Plaintiff alleges some sort of conspiracy by the magistrate judge regarding his order. Plaintiff 7 also seeks appointment of counsel. 8 9 Plaintiff’s arguments are without merit. Medical malpractice fails to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim because medical malpractice does not violate the Constitution. See Estelle v. 10 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in 11 diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment 12 under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation 13 merely because the victim is a prisoner.”). Additionally, the United States Magistrate Judge is 14 entitled to absolute judicial immunity from Section 1983 damages actions. Tanner v. Heise, 879 15 F.2d 572, 576-78 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order was not 16 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 17 Regarding a stay of the proceedings, Plaintiff contends that due to his incarceration, he is 18 unable to seek representation by a law firm or to find expert witnesses. Plaintiff requests a stay 19 for one year. Plaintiff currently fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s incarceration is not good cause 20 to merit a stay of these proceedings. The Court will not grant a stay in this action. 21 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections and motion to stay are 22 denied. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days in which to file an amended complaint as set forth in 23 the court’s June 7, 2011 order. 24 25 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 August 9, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?