Turner v. California Departement of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/21/17 ORDERING that upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed 7/7/17 32 is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff is given another 30 days from the date of this Order to either file an amended com plaint to attempt to state claims against defendants Norris, Silveira, Mariano, Dulk, Brunetti, Dobie, Rodrigues, Parsons, Martin, Marquez, Kesterson, Gaughan, Thomas, Price, Murphy, Lui, Hemenway, Vila, Briggs, Voong, Beard, and Kernan; or inform th e Magistrate Judge that he wishes to proceed on his first amended complaint against only defendants Johnson and Brennan. As ordered by the Magistrate Judge, if plaintiff chooses the latter option, he must provide the court with three complete copies of the endorsed first amended complaint so that the Marshal may effect service of the first amended complaint on defendants Johnson and Brennan. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSEPH D. TURNER,

11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1584 WBS DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION (CDCR), et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On July 7, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order dismissing some of the defendants

18

and finding service of the first amended complaint appropriate for defendants Brennan and

19

Johnson. When he submitted some documents for service, plaintiff stated that he did not consent

20

to dismissal of the other defendants. (See ECF No. 33.) The magistrate judge construed

21

plaintiff’s statement as a request for reconsideration of the July 7 screening order, affirmed the

22

screening order, and informed plaintiff that he had three options: (1) file an amended complaint

23

as explained in the July 7 order; (2) seek reconsideration of the July 7 order from the district

24

judge; or (3) proceed on the claims in his first amended complaint against only defendants

25

Brennan and Johnson. (See ECF No. 34.) On September 15, 2017, plaintiff moved for this

26

court’s reconsideration of the July 7 order. (ECF No. 35.)

27
28

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it
1

1
2

does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

3

magistrate judge filed July 7, 2017 (ECF No. 32) is affirmed. Plaintiff is given another 30 days

4

from the date of this Order to either file an amended complaint to attempt to state claims against

5

defendants Norris, Silveira, Mariano, Dulk, Brunetti, Dobie, Rodrigues, Parsons, Martin,

6

Marquez, Kesterson, Gaughan, Thomas, Price, Murphy, Lui, Hemenway, Vila, Briggs,

7

Voong, Beard, and Kernan; or inform the Magistrate Judge that he wishes to proceed on his first

8

amended complaint against only defendants Johnson and Brennan. As ordered by the Magistrate

9

Judge, if plaintiff chooses the latter option, he must provide the court with three complete copies

10

of the endorsed first amended complaint so that the Marshal may effect service of the first

11

amended complaint on defendants Johnson and Brennan.

12

Dated: September 21, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

DLB:9
turn1584.850

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2