Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 48

ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration Of Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 47 ), ORDER For Plaintiff To Comply With Magistrate Judge's Order Of June 29, 2015 Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/16/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CHARLES A. MILLER,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

13

Defendants.

1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S ORDER
(ECF No. 47.)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY
WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
OF JUNE 29, 2015 WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS

14
15

I.

BACKGROUND

16

Charles A. Miller (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

17

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by

18

Plaintiff in the Fresno County Superior Court on June 15, 2010 (Case #10CECG02100). On

19

March 8, 2012, defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez

20

(ARemoving Defendants@) removed the case to federal court and requested the court to screen

21

the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On March 8, 2012, defendants

22

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Ahmed, Anderson, Chudy,

23

Duenas, Eddings, Pascual, and Walker (AConsenting Defendants@) joined in the Notice of

24

Removal of Action. (ECF No. 4.)

25

On October 17, 2013, the court dismissed the Complaint for violation of Rule 8(a) of

26

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 32.) On December 2,

27

2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 35.) On June 19, 2014, the court

28

issued an order striking the First Amended Complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
1

1

court’s order of October 17, 2013. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Second

2

Amended Complaint.

3

Complaint. (ECF No. 44.)

(Id.)

On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended

4

The court screened the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

5

issued an order on June 29, 2015, requiring Plaintiff to either file a Third Amended Complaint

6

or notify the court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the court.

7

(ECF No. 46.) On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by the District

8

Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s screening order of June 29, 2015. (ECF No. 47.)

9

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT JUDGE

10

A.

11

Local Rule 303 provides that "[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate

12

Judge's ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically designat[ing]

13

the ruling, or party thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection. This request shall be

14

captioned 'Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge's Ruling.'"

15

Local Rule 303(c). "The standard that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the

16

'clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A)." Local

17

Rule 303(f).

Legal Standard

Plaintiff’s Motion

18

B.

19

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s screening order is “clearly erroneous”

20

and/or “contrary to law” under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 303(f). Plaintiff

21

disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment that the Second Amended Complaint fails to

22

allege facts showing that any of the defendants, except defendant Medina, acted with deliberate

23

indifference to his serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also argues

24

that the Magistrate Judge erroneously found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for retaliation.

25

Plaintiff also argues that the Magistrate Judge seemed to disregard well-established Ninth

26

Circuit case law and legal authority applicable to a PLRA screening process on a Prisoner’s

27

Eighth Amendment medical claims.

28

Magistrate Judge’s screening order, and that the District Court make independent findings and

Plaintiff requests that the District Judge vacate the

2

1

conclusions as to the sufficiency of the Second Amended Complaint, with consideration of

2

Plaintiff’s arguments.

3

C.

4

The court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s screening order of June 29, 2015, and

5

does not find it to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for

6

reconsideration shall be denied.

Discussion

7

At this stage of the proceedings, if Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

8

screening order, his remedy is to file a Third Amended Complaint clearly and succinctly stating

9

the allegations and claims upon which he wishes to proceed. Plaintiff was forewarned in the

10

screening order that if he does not comply with the screening order, this action will be

11

dismissed. (ECF No. 46 at 20 ¶5.).

12
13

Plaintiff shall be granted additional time to comply with the screening order.
III.

CONCLUSION

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on July 10, 2015, is DENIED;

16

2.

Plaintiff is required to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s screening order of

17
18

June 29, 2015;
3.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either file

19

a Third Amended Complaint or notify the court that he is willing to proceed

20

only on the claims found cognizable by the court, pursuant to the Magistrate

21

Judge’s screening order of June 29, 2015; and

22

4.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 16, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
3