Kabede v. Brown et al
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/19/17: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 12 of the magistrate judge's order dismissing the complaint is denied. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint. The findings and recommendations filed February 22, 2017 9 are adopted in full. Plaintiff's Motion to Order Physical and Mental Exam 5 is denied. (Kaminski, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:16-cv-1765 JAM DB P
GARY BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 22, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On March 13, 2017,
plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
Also on February 22, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order which, among other
things, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. In his objections,
plaintiff also disputes the basis for the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his complaint. This court
will construe plaintiff’s March 13 filing as both an objection to the magistrate judge’s
recommended denial of plaintiff’s request for an injunction and as a motion for reconsideration of
the magistrate judge’s dismissal of the complaint.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(j), the court will reconsider an order based upon a showing (1)
that new or different facts or circumstances exist which did not exist or were not shown in the
prior motion, or that other grounds exist for the motion; and (2) why the facts or circumstances
were not shown at the time of the prior motion. The court has reviewed plaintiff’s March 13,
2017 filing and finds it does not support reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s February 22,
2017 order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.
With respect to plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that
plaintiff’s Motion to Order Physical and Mental Exam be denied, in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo
review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and
recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 12) of the magistrate judge’s order
dismissing the complaint is denied;
Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a first amended
complaint as described in the magistrate judge’s February 22, 2017 order;
3. The findings and recommendations filed February 22, 2017 (ECF No. 9) are adopted
in full; and
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Order Physical and Mental Exam (ECF No. 5) is denied.
DATED: April 19, 2017
/s/ John A. Mendez________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?