Pierce v. Unknown

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 29 and 30 Motion ; ORDER REFERRING this matter back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/2/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

SEAVON PIERCE,

12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00650 LJO DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS

Plaintiff,
v.

[ECF Nos. 29, 30]

14

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18 forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on
19 November 12, 2014, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the
20 Eastern District of California. The matter was designated as a civil rights action. Plaintiff filed a
21 First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2014. He filed a Second Amended Complaint on
22 December 15, 2014. On April 28, 2015, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. On
23 October 5, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint,
24 with leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
25

On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed two vague pleadings.

The crux of Plaintiff’s

26 complaints appears to be his belief that the Magistrate Judge has been “recused” and therefore
27 has no jurisdiction to render any decisions in this matter. Plaintiff also claims that the Magistrate
28 Judge has admitted and consented to illegal acts. Plaintiff is incorrect. First, the Magistrate

1

1 Judge has not recused himself or been recused or disqualified in this matter. Second, Plaintiff’s
2 allegation that the Magistrate Judge has admitted or consented to illegal acts is completely
3 unfounded. Third, it is true that Plaintiff has not consented to have the Magistrate Judge conduct
4 any and all proceedings in this matter; nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
5 302, the matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge to hear and determine all pretrial
6 matters and all hearings in this matter. With respect to any dispositive motions, the Magistrate
7 Judge is authorized to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations to this Court,
8 which he has done.
ORDER

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s miscellaneous motions (ECF

11 Nos. 29, 30] including his motion for disqualification are DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
12 636(b), the matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 2, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2