York v. Stewart et al

Filing 10

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Objections to June 22, 2016 Order, and Denying Motion for Reconsideration 9 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/2/16. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD RAY YORK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. M. STEWART, et al., 15 No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO JUNE 22, 2016 ORDER, AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants. (Doc. No. 9) 16 17 Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed this action on December 7, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.) On 20 December 21, 2015, plaintiff declined to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 21 No. 3.) Consequently, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 22, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and found 23 24 that it stated a cognizable Eight Amendment claims against defendant Garcia for the excessive 25 use of force, against defendant Neighbors for failure to protect plaintiff from the use of force, and 26 against defendants Garcia, Neighbors and Stewart for failure to decontaminate plaintiff’s cell. All 27 of plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Finally, plaintiff was 28 ///// 1 1 ordered to either amend his complaint, or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on 2 those claims found to be cognizable in that order. (Doc. No. 8.) 3 On July 18, 2016, plaintiff filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s June 22, 2016 4 order, seeking de novo review by the undersigned and an order that he be allowed to proceed on 5 all of the claims alleged in his complaint. (Doc. No. 9.) The court construes plaintiff’s objection 6 as a motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s June 22, 2016 screening order. 7 Reconsideration of a magistrate judge’s order, such as this one, by the assigned district 8 judge is governed by Local Rule 303. At the outset, the Local Rule provides that a ruling by the 9 magistrate judge becomes final if no reconsideration of the order is sought within fourteen days of 10 service of the order. Local Rule 303(b). Here, twenty-six days passed before plaintiff filed his 11 objection to the order. While, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration therefore appears to be 12 untimely, the undersigned will nonetheless consider it. Of course, the standard of review to be 13 employed by the district judge in reconsidering a magistrate judge’s order “is the ‘clearly 14 erroneous or contrary to law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” Local Rule 303(f). 15 Plaintiff has failed to identify any aspect of the magistrate judge’s order that was clearly 16 erroneous or contrary to law. 17 Plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge issuing the June 22, 2016 screening order 18 without the parties’ prior consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 9 at 1–2.) Consent 19 was not needed for the magistrate judge to properly enter the non-dispositive order in question 20 and civil rights actions brought by persons in custody are specifically referred to magistrate 21 judges in this district by Local Rule. See Local Rule 302(c)(17). The issuance of the screening 22 order in question was within the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. See Crispin v. Christian 23 Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965, 970 (C.D. Cal. 2010); see also Reid v. United States, No. 24 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS, 2015 WL 2235127, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2015); Robinson v. 25 Adams, No. 1:08-cv-1380-AWI-GSA PC, 2009 WL 1953167, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2009). 26 Finally, in his objection plaintiff requests that J. Akanno be dismissed as a defendant in 27 this action because that individual was never named as a defendant in the case caption nor 28 mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 9 at 11.) The magistrate judge, however, did not 2 1 find that this action should proceed against a J. Akanno and the case caption in the docket does 2 not reflect J. Akanno as a defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is moot. For all the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 9) is 3 4 denied. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 2, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?