Godwin v. Christianson et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 15 Motion for Reconsideration by a District Court Judge of the Magistrate Judge's Order Dismissing this case, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/18/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK A. GODWIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. 1:13-cv-00950-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE (Doc. 15.) ADAM CHRISTIANSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND Mark A. Godwin (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 21 commencing this case on June 21, 2013. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed the Complaint 22 On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), authorizing the Magistrate Judge to conduct any and all 24 proceedings in the case, including trial and entry of final judgment, and no other parties have 25 appeared. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern 26 District of California, the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to conduct any and all 27 proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge may be required. 28 Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 1 1 On May 16, 2014, the undersigned issued an order dismissing this case, with prejudice, 2 for failure to state a claim, and judgment was entered. (Docs. 10, 11.) On June 16, 2014, 3 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the order by a District Court Judge. (Doc. 4 15.) 5 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 Plaintiff requests reconsideration by a District Court Judge of the Magistrate Judge's 7 order dismissing this case. Plaintiff is not entitled to review by a District Court Judge, because 8 he consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. AIf the statutory requirements [of 28 9 U.S.C. ' 636(c)] are met, the final judgment entered by a magistrate is directly appealable to 10 the court of appeals without intervening review by a district judge.@ Alaniz v. California 11 Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff was informed on the consent form he 12 signed on July 2, 2013 that "[i]f the parties do consent, a Magistrate Judge may conduct all 13 proceedings and enter judgment in the case subject to direct appellate review by the Ninth 14 Circuit Court of Appeals.@ (Doc. 5.) (emphasis added) Therefore, Plaintiff may not appeal the 15 Magistrate Judge=s order to a District Court Judge, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 16 shall be denied. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for 19 reconsideration by a District Court Judge of the Magistrate Judge's order dismissing this case is 20 DENIED. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 18, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 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?