(PC) Fisher v. Doe

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's #6 Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 7/8/2024. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 Order 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREL R. FISHER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (Doc. No. 6) J. DOE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Cirrect [sic] Clerk’s Errors” filed May 18 28, 2024. (Doc. No. 6, “Motion”). Plaintiff contends there are various errors and 19 mischaracterizations in an unspecified order issued in this matter that preclude the undersigned 20 from presiding over the case. (See generally id.). Liberally construed, Plaintiff objects to certain 21 language in the Court’s First Informational Order (Doc. No. 3) and contends that Local Rule 302, 22 which delineates the authority of magistrate judges in this district, is contrary to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1). (Doc. No. 6 at 2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 24 Motion. 25 Plaintiff’s Motion first disputes that he is either a prisoner or civil detainee, as suggested 26 by the heading of the Court’s First Informational Order (“FIO”). (Id. at 1). However, a review of 27 the Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator website indicates that Plaintiff is currently being 28 held at Butner Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina under Register Number 119271 1 045.1 Plaintiff also contends, erroneously, that the FIO improperly uses the terms “plaintiff” and 2 “defendant” to refer to the parties in this civil matter, because those terms are only used in 3 criminal cases and the court should instead use the terms “petitioner” and “respondent.”2 (Doc. 4 No. 6 at 1). Further, Plaintiff asserts that the FIO fails to distinguish between “cases” and 5 “controversies” which he claims “do not mean the same thing” although he provides no authority 6 for this assertion, nor in what way the distinction is material to this action. (Id.). 7 Finally, Plaintiff appears to assert that the undersigned lacks authority, as a magistrate 8 judge, to screen his complaint or preside over this case because Plaintiff has not consented to 9 magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Id. at 1-2). However, Plaintiff’s consent is not needed for the 10 undersigned to enter a non-dispositive order in this civil rights action. Complaints brought by 11 persons in custody are specifically referred to magistrate judges in this district by Local Rule. See 12 Local Rule 302(c)(17). The issuance of the First Informational Order, and any other non- 13 dispositive orders, is within the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. See York v. Stewart, 2016 WL 14 6522744, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016) (citing cases). In contrast, the Findings and 15 Recommendations to deny Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismiss this case issued by the 16 undersigned on June 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 7) will be adjudicated by the district court. 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 18 Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED for the reasons stated herein. 19 Dated: July 8, 2024 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited: June 7, 2024). See also Fisher v. United States, Case No. 4:24-cv-00247-FJG (W.D. Mo.), Doc. No. 3 at 1. 2 Plaintiff is advised that the terms “petitioner” and “respondent” are typically used in habeas and appellate matters, while “plaintiff” and “defendant” are used at the trial level in both civil and criminal matters. 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?