Orozco v. Brown

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/29/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8 , is DENIED; and The magistrate judges August 27, 2014, Order, ECF No. 7 , is AFFIRMED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HERNAN OROZCO,

12

No. 2:14-cv-1404-MCE-CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8, of the magistrate judge’s

17
18

August 27, 2014, Order converting this case to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Pursuant to

19

E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

20

contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it does not appear that

21

the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

22

Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to argue that he has standing to enforce any order issued in Plata

23

v. Brown, No. 01-cv-1351-TEH (N.D. Cal.) as an intended third-party beneficiary under Rule 71

24

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see U.S. v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813, 819-820 (9th Cir.

25

2008), he may assert that argument in Plata, pending in the Northern District of California, but

26

not in this action.

27

///

28

///

1

Accordingly:

2

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8, is DENIED; and

3

2. The magistrate judge’s August 27, 2014, Order, ECF No. 7, is AFFIRMED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: October 29, 2014

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2