Mitchell v. Felker et al

Filing 278

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/2/13 GRANTING 182 Motion; the court retains all matters asociated with this case going forward. Any pending motions before the magistrate judge are hereby vacated. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MITCHELL, et. al,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:08-CV-01196-TLN−EFB

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

TOM FELKER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Robert Mitchell’s (“Plaintiff”) Request

18

under Local Rule 302(d) to have Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Motion for

19

Preliminary Injunction Heard by the District Court (ECF No. 182). Defendants have responded

20

to Plaintiff’s motion and oppose granting Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 186.) The Court has

21

carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties. For the reasons stated below, the

22

Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Additionally, in the interest of judicial economy, this

23

Court will exercise its power to retain all matters involving this case pursuant to Local Rule

24

302(d). See E.D. CAL. L. R. 302(d).

25

Plaintiff is a state prisoner and has brought a civil rights action pursuant to 42

26

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is challenging the state-wide practice in California prisons of imposing

27

race-based inmate lockdowns. Plaintiff alleges that under the Defendants’ official lockdown

28

policy, California prisons regularly impose lockdowns that segregate and punish entire racial
1

1

groups for the actions of just some of their members.

2

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(17), this case is

3

before Magistrate Judge Brennan. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has moved for class

4

certification (ECF No. 155) and a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 156) and further requested

5

that these motions be decided by the District Court under Local Rule 302(d) (ECF No. 186).

6

Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 253).

7
8

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) a judge may not designate a magistrate judge
to hear and determine

9

a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for
summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or
information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a
criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action,
to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action.

10
11
12
13

Although § 636(b)(1)(B) does allow a judge to “designate a magistrate judge to submit to a judge

14

of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the

15

court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A),” the district court must conduct a de novo

16

review of any objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings or recommendations. See 28

17

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

18

The litigation history of this case is riddled with objections to the magistrate

19

judge’s findings as well as numerous motions for reconsideration. Therefore, because Plaintiff’s

20

class certification and preliminary injunction motion, as well as Defendants’ summary judgment

21

motion, are likely to require de novo review, this Court finds that judicial economy would be best

22

served by this Court retaining all future motions associated with this case. As such, this Court

23

hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 182) and thus retains all matters associated with

24

this case going forward. Any pending hearings before the magistrate judge are hereby vacated.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 2, 2013

27
28
2

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge