Reid v. United States of America et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/12/15. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GORDON C. REID,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION

MOTION

FOR

v.
(ECF No. 16)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights and tort action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403

19

U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.

20

On November 24, 2014, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case screened

21

Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend.

22

(ECF No. 13.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed objections to the screening order (ECF No. 16),

23

which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration.

24

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows parties to file objections to

26

nondispositive orders decided by a Magistrate Judge. “The district judge in the case

27
28
1

1

must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is

2

clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.

3

Similarly, Local Rule 303(c) allows parties to seek reconsideration by a District

4

Judge of a Magistrate Judge’s pretrial rulings. Local Rule 303(c). The assigned District

5

Judge shall review all such requests for reconsideration under the "clearly erroneous or

6

contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Local Rule 303(f) (citing

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

8

III.

9

ANALYSIS
A.

Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

10

Plaintiff first objects that the Magistrate Judge did not have authority to screen his

11

complaint because Plaintiff did not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. The

12

Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The Magistrate

13

Judge's Screening Order was not a final order, dispositive of a claim or defense, and

14

therefore is not outside the Magistrate Judge's statutorily granted jurisdiction. See

15

Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965, 970 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Courts in

16

this district have upheld a Magistrate Judge's authority to screen complaints, so long as

17

any dismissal is not dispositive and leave to amend is granted. E.g., Robinson v. Adams,

18

No. 1:08–CV–1380 AWI GSA PC, 2009 WL 1953167, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2009).

19

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not exceed his statutory authority in dismissing

20

with leave to amend.

21

B.

Authority to Screen for Misjoined Claims

22

Plaintiff next objects that the screening order exceeded the Court’s authority to

23

dismiss for failure to state a claim, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

24

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that improperly joined claims do not “fail to state a claim,”

25

and thus cannot be dismissed at the screening stage. Plaintiff also states that the action

26

may not be dismissed due to improperly joined claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

27
28
2

1

Procedure 21 and Williams v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

2

467 Fed. Appx. 672 (2012).

3

The Court has authority to screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Both provisions require the Court to dismiss an

5

action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

6

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

7

Additionally, misjoined parties may be dropped by the Court on its own motion at any

8

time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention that the Court lacks authority

9

to address misjoinder at the screening stage is incorrect. Additionally, Plaintiff’s

10

contention that the Court lacks authority to dismiss his action for misjoinder is inapposite.

11

Plaintiff’s action was not dismissed in its entirety; rather, Plaintiff’s complaint was

12

dismissed with leave to amend.

13

C.

Whether Claims Were Misjoined

14

Plaintiff further contends that his claims are properly joined, with the possible

15

exception of his loss of outdoor exercise claim and deprivation of personal property

16

claim. He asserts that these claims nevertheless all should be joined because they

17

involve similar questions of fact and law, i.e., the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens.

18

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that many of Plaintiff’s claims do not

19

arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Plaintiff was advised to decide which

20

transaction or occurrence he wishes to pursue in this action. He further was advised that

21

he may join other claims involving the same defendants involved in his chosen

22

transaction or occurrence. He may not join unrelated claims against additional

23

defendants. The Magistrate Judge’s ruling in this regard was not clearly erroneous or

24

contrary to law.

25

IV.

26
27

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not presented a basis for reconsideration

of the Magistrate Judge’s screening order. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

28
3

1. Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 16), which the Court construes as a motion

1
2

for reconsideration, are DENIED;

3

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date

4

this order;

5

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order,

6

the action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to comply with a

7
8
9

court order and failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 12, 2015

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10

4.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4