(PC) Bradford v. Brewer et al

Filing 22

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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Raymond Alford Bradford,

12
13
14

No. 2:21-cv-01413-KJM-KJN

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
K. Brewer, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Raymond Bradford moves for reconsideration of this court’s previous order,

18

which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny Bradford’s application to proceed

19

in forma pauperis. See generally Mot. Recons., ECF No. 21; Prev. Order, ECF No. 20; F&Rs,

20

ECF No. 19. In that previous order, this court noted that Bradford had not filed objections to the

21

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. See Prev. Order at 1. Bradford claims he

22

could not object because correctional officers stole his legal materials and personal belongings.

23

See Mot. at 2.

24

The court assumes without deciding that factors beyond Bradford’s control prevented him

25

from filing timely objections. The court also construes Bradford’s motion to reconsider as

26

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and considers those

27

objections now. They do not show Bradford should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.

28

As the Magistrate Judge correctly explained, at least three of Bradford’s previous lawsuits were
1

Case 2:21-cv-01413-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
1

dismissed as “frivolous or malicious” or because they “failed to state a claim upon which relief

2

may be granted.” F&Rs at 1–2 (citing cases). For that reason, Bradford could proceed in forma

3

pauperis in this action only if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. at 2

4

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). He has not shown that he faces any such danger, neither in his

5

original request nor in his motion for reconsideration.

6

Bradford’s motion might also be construed as a late request to reconsider the Magistrate

7

Judge’s order denying his motions for injunctive relief and to consolidate. See MJ Order, ECF

8

No. 18. The court assumes without deciding that Bradford is entitled to relief from the deadlines

9

imposed by this district’s local rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(b) (setting deadlines for

10

reconsideration by district judges). When asked to reconsider a magistrate judge’s pretrial orders,

11

a district court must determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” or

12

“contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Bradford identifies no legal errors in the Magistrate

13

Judge’s order. The Magistrate Judge correctly applied the legal standard for pretrial motions for

14

injunctive relief, see MJ Order at 1–3, and consolidation, see id. at 3. The Magistrate Judge

15

denied relief because Bradford did not “explain why he requires a medical hold, or how a transfer

16

might pose a threat of harm.” Id. at 3. The Magistrate Judge also found no evidence in the record

17

to support Bradford’s claims of imminent harm. See id. As for consolidation, the Magistrate

18

Judge could see no “common questions of law or fact” in the matters Bradford would consolidate.

19

See id. These findings were not clearly in error.

20
21
22
23

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.

24

2