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)

Download PDF
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

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?