Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00560-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL R. FISHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

(Doc. No. 6)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Cirrect [sic] Clerk’s Errors” filed May 

28, 2024. (Doc. No. 6, “Motion”). Plaintiff contends there are various errors and 

mischaracterizations in an unspecified order issued in this matter that preclude the undersigned 

from presiding over the case. (See generally id.). Liberally construed, Plaintiff objects to certain 

language in the Court’s First Informational Order (Doc. No. 3) and contends that Local Rule 302, 

which delineates the authority of magistrate judges in this district, is contrary to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). (Doc. No. 6 at 2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 

Motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion first disputes that he is either a prisoner or civil detainee, as suggested 

by the heading of the Court’s First Informational Order (“FIO”). (Id. at 1). However, a review of 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator website indicates that Plaintiff is currently being 

held at Butner Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina under Register Number 11927-

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 9 Filed 07/08/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

045.

1

 Plaintiff also contends, erroneously, that the FIO improperly uses the terms “plaintiff” and 

“defendant” to refer to the parties in this civil matter, because those terms are only used in 

criminal cases and the court should instead use the terms “petitioner” and “respondent.”

2

 (Doc. 

No. 6 at 1). Further, Plaintiff asserts that the FIO fails to distinguish between “cases” and 

“controversies” which he claims “do not mean the same thing” although he provides no authority 

for this assertion, nor in what way the distinction is material to this action. (Id.).

Finally, Plaintiff appears to assert that the undersigned lacks authority, as a magistrate 

judge, to screen his complaint or preside over this case because Plaintiff has not consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Id. at 1-2). However, Plaintiff’s consent is not needed for the 

undersigned to enter a non-dispositive order in this civil rights action. Complaints brought by 

persons in custody are specifically referred to magistrate judges in this district by Local Rule. See

Local Rule 302(c)(17). The issuance of the First Informational Order, and any other nondispositive orders, is within the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. See York v. Stewart, 2016 WL 

6522744, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016) (citing cases). In contrast, the Findings and 

Recommendations to deny Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismiss this case issued by the 

undersigned on June 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 7) will be adjudicated by the district court. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.

Dated: July 8, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited: June 7, 2024). See also Fisher v. United States, Case 

No. 4:24-cv-00247-FJG (W.D. Mo.), Doc. No. 3 at 1.

2 Plaintiff is advised that the terms “petitioner” and “respondent” are typically used in habeas and appellate 

matters, while “plaintiff” and “defendant” are used at the trial level in both civil and criminal matters. 

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 9 Filed 07/08/24 Page 2 of 2