Coleman v. City of Sacramento, et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/23/2016 GRANTING Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Reconsideration; Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed 5/18/2016 is affirmed; DENYING Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint no later than 30 days from the date of this order. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT E. COLEMAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0575 JAM CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On May 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

18

order filed May 18, 2016, dismissing the complaint in this action with leave to amend. (ECF No.

19

7.) The magistrate judge determined that (1) plaintiff’s claims regarding involuntary medication

20

were being adjudicated in the state courts, such that federal abstention was proper, and (2)

21

plaintiff’s single-cell housing claims were dismissed in an earlier-filed action for failure to

22

exhaust administrative remedies, and plaintiff has not shown that he has exhausted those claims

23

since the dismissal.

24

In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff cites a February 19, 2016 order by the Court of

25

Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, denying his petition for writ of habeas

26

corpus in Case No. C080736, concerning plaintiff’s involuntary medication order. (ECF No. 10

27

at 7; see ECF No. 1 at 44.) The Court of Appeal denied the petition “without prejudice to filing a

28

petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court (Pen. Code § 2602, sub.
1

1

(c)(7)(C)).” (Id.) As to his housing claims, plaintiff cites first- and second-level responses to his

2

inmate appeal No. SAC-S-13-2151. (ECF No. 10 at 11-15.)

3

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless

4

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does

5

not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

6

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is granted as set forth herein;

8

2. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed May 18, 2016 is affirmed;

9

3. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 11) is denied; and

10

4. Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint no later than thirty days from the date of this

11

order. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action.

12

DATED: September 23, 2016

13

/s/ John A. Mendez___________________________

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2