(PC) Bradford v. Brewer et al
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/17/2023 DENYING 21 Motion for Reconsideration. This matter is REFERRED again to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Rodriguez, E)
Case 2:21-cv-01413-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Raymond Alford Bradford,
K. Brewer, et al.,
Plaintiff Raymond Bradford moves for reconsideration of this court’s previous order,
which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny Bradford’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis. See generally Mot. Recons., ECF No. 21; Prev. Order, ECF No. 20; F&Rs,
ECF No. 19. In that previous order, this court noted that Bradford had not filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. See Prev. Order at 1. Bradford claims he
could not object because correctional officers stole his legal materials and personal belongings.
See Mot. at 2.
The court assumes without deciding that factors beyond Bradford’s control prevented him
from filing timely objections. The court also construes Bradford’s motion to reconsider as
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and considers those
objections now. They do not show Bradford should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
As the Magistrate Judge correctly explained, at least three of Bradford’s previous lawsuits were
Case 2:21-cv-01413-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
dismissed as “frivolous or malicious” or because they “failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.” F&Rs at 1–2 (citing cases). For that reason, Bradford could proceed in forma
pauperis in this action only if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. at 2
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). He has not shown that he faces any such danger, neither in his
original request nor in his motion for reconsideration.
Bradford’s motion might also be construed as a late request to reconsider the Magistrate
Judge’s order denying his motions for injunctive relief and to consolidate. See MJ Order, ECF
No. 18. The court assumes without deciding that Bradford is entitled to relief from the deadlines
imposed by this district’s local rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(b) (setting deadlines for
reconsideration by district judges). When asked to reconsider a magistrate judge’s pretrial orders,
a district court must determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” or
“contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Bradford identifies no legal errors in the Magistrate
Judge’s order. The Magistrate Judge correctly applied the legal standard for pretrial motions for
injunctive relief, see MJ Order at 1–3, and consolidation, see id. at 3. The Magistrate Judge
denied relief because Bradford did not “explain why he requires a medical hold, or how a transfer
might pose a threat of harm.” Id. at 3. The Magistrate Judge also found no evidence in the record
to support Bradford’s claims of imminent harm. See id. As for consolidation, the Magistrate
Judge could see no “common questions of law or fact” in the matters Bradford would consolidate.
See id. These findings were not clearly in error.
The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 21) is denied. This matter is referred again to
the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 17, 2023.
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?