Mendoza v. Golden Valley Health Centers et al

Filing 4

ORDER DENYING 3 Request for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2017. Amended Complaint due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCISCO MENDOZA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 1:16-cv-01611-DAD-SAB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION

GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH
CENTERS, et al.,

(Doc. No. 3)

Defendants.

16

On October 26, 2016, plaintiff Francisco Mendoza filed this action against defendants

17
18

Golden Valley Health Center (“GVHC”), et al. alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights

19

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and relevant state law. The matter was referred to a

20

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On December 20, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

21
22

issued an order dismissing it for failure to state a claim and granted plaintiff leave to file an

23

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff was provided with thirty days in which to file an

24

amended complaint. Rather than file an amended complaint, on January 20, 2017, plaintiff filed

25

objections to the screening order. (Doc. No. 3.) The undersigned construes plaintiff’s objections

26

as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his complaint with

27

leave to amend.

28

/////
1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive pretrial matters may

2

be referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge.

3

See also Local Rule 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part of the magistrate

4

judge’s order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f). See

5

also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Because the magistrate judge’s prior order granted plaintiff leave

6

to amend and did not finally dispose of any claims or arguments, the screening order was non-

7

dispositive. See McKeever v. Block, 9323 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (“As to non-dispositive

8

matters, Article III appears to create no bar to a greater role for magistrates. Therefore, a

9

magistrate can, for example, dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval by the

10

court.”); Arnold v. United States Forest Serv., No. 3:14-cv-00421-MMD-WGC, 2016 WL

11

3395461, at *2 (D. Nev. June 13, 2016) (“Dismissal with leave to amend is non-dispositive and

12

therefore within the authority granted by [28] U.S.C. § 636.”); Reid v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-

13

01163-LJO-MJS (PC), 2015 WL 2235127, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2015).

14

On a motion to reconsider a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order, the magistrate

15

judge’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate judge’s legal

16

conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law. Local Rule 303(f); see

17

also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195,

18

1200–01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d

19

1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect

20

legal standard, fails to consider an element of applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies

21

relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-

22

MJS, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) (internal quotations and citations

23

omitted).

24

Plaintiff’s objections to the order dismissing his original complaint with leave to amend

25

indicates he disagrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he has failed to state a

26

cognizable claim, but also suggest he is able to plead further facts to support his claim. (See Doc.

27

No. 3 at 1 (“I have spoken with numerous individuals who have not come forward.”); id. at 2

28

(“There are numerous documents, emails and evidence I had submitted in my EEOC file that
2

1

prove and support that I was subjected to a hostile work environment.”).) Plaintiff’s mere

2

disagreement with the magistrate judge’s order does not demonstrate that the order was clearly

3

erroneous or contrary to law. Further, plaintiff’s representation that he can plead additional facts

4

suggests allowing leave to amend is an appropriate course at this juncture. Any additional factual

5

details plaintiff can plead may be included in an amended complaint, as noted by the magistrate

6

judge in his order. (See Doc. No. 2.) Similarly, to the extent plaintiff represents he is seeking

7

relief in addition to simply the removal of a state-court ordered restraining order, he is

8

encouraged to state the relief he seeks—whether in the form of damages, an injunction, or

9

declaratory relief—in his amended complaint. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff is again reminded an

10

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927

11

(9th Cir. 2012); Valdez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011), and must be

12

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220.

13

Given the foregoing, plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 3), construed as a request to

14

reconsider the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his original complaint with leave to amend, is

15

denied. Plaintiff is directed to file any amended complaint he wishes to present within thirty (30)

16

days of this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

17

action.1 This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

18

consistent with this order, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and all applicable local rules.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

April 27, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff suggests he has been seeking records from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission he believes may in some way support his claim. (Doc. No. 3 at 1–2.) If plaintiff
contends that he needs additional time to file an amended complaint, he may submit a request an
extension of time, supported by a showing of good cause, from the assigned magistrate judge.
3