Steward v. Thumser et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/7/2018 CONSTRUING 49 Motion as a request for clarification of the 2/15/2018 reassignment order. Plaintiff's request for an investigation is denied. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONNY STEWARD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-1232 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

G. THUMSER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Motion for a More Definite

21

Statement.” (ECF No. 49.) Despite such title, plaintiff complains that his case was suddenly and

22

without notice assigned to a different district judge, and that the reassignment order used a

23

different case caption, suggesting that there has been “an inadvertent oversight” or a violation of

24

plaintiff’s due process rights by the removal of the warden from this case. Plaintiff contends that

25

the order of reassignment “demands an investigation.” (ECF No. 49 at 3.)

26

Under Rule 12(e), a party may move for a more definite statement with respect to a

27

complaint that “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (stating
1

1

that, “[i]f a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a

2

defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding”). Motions

3

pursuant to Rule 12(e) are generally “viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted[.]” E.E.O.C. v.

4

Alia Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1250 (E.D. Cal. 2012).

5

Plaintiff’s concerns are not directed to a pleading filed by any defendant, and therefore is

6

not properly a motion for more definite statement. Rather, plaintiff is concerned about the

7

February 15, 2018 reassignment of his case to a different district judge by Chief Judge O’Neill,

8

and is therefore construed as a request for clarification. However, as the order of reassignment

9

indicated, the reassignment of plaintiff’s case was due to Judge Burrell taking senior status. Such

10

reassignment was among many other random reassignments due to the reduction in Judge

11

Burrell’s caseload. Such order of reassignment, including whether or not the reassignment order

12

was properly captioned, has no bearing on the merits of plaintiff’s case. Rather, this action

13

proceeds according to the court’s screening order which found that plaintiff’s second amended

14

complaint states potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for relief against defendants

15

Olson, Harrison, Pompey, Tapiz, and Jones pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1915A(b). (ECF No. 20.)

17
18

As noted by plaintiff, the instant action is stayed, and plaintiff shall refrain from filing any
further motions pending completion of the March 13, 2018 settlement conference.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 49) is construed as a request for clarification of the

21
22
23

February 15, 2018 reassignment order; and
2. Plaintiff’s request for an investigation is denied.
Dated: March 7, 2018

24
25
26
/stew1232.inf

27
28
2