Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00839/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00839-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT EMERSON FELIX,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLANDENIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00839-NODJ-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION AS 

PREMATURE

(ECF No. 17)

Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained 

pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not 

prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened.

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 9.) On September 18, 2023, the undersigned issued 

findings and recommendations that the motion be denied, and Plaintiff did not file objections. 

(ECF No. 12.)

On December 1, 2023, while the findings and recommendations were pending review, the 

Chief District Judge issued an order that this case would be temporarily reassigned to No District 

Court Judge (NODJ) due to the elevation of District Judge Ana I. de Alba to the Ninth Circuit 

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 18 Filed 02/29/24 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

Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 16.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed February 28, 

2024. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff requests that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the 

Court reconsider the December 1, 2023 order. Plaintiff states that Defendants’ continued actions 

in relation to his original motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

cannot wait for the Court to assign a Judge. Plaintiff has therefore re-filed his motion for 

temporary restraining order. (Id.)

To the extent Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration of a final order on his September 7, 

2023 motion for a temporary restraining order, the request is denied as premature. The 

September 18, 2023 findings and recommendations remain pending, and no final order has been 

issued such that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate.

If Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration of the Court’s December 1, 2023 order 

temporarily reassigning this case to No District Court Judge (NODJ), that request is also denied. 

The December 1, 2023 order is not a “final order,” nor has Plaintiff set forth any other reason that 

would justify relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to re-file his motion for temporary restraining 

order, the Court denies the request as inappropriate. Plaintiff’s September 7, 2023 motion 

remains pending, and re-filing of the motion is unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 17), is HEREBY 

DENIED, as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 18 Filed 02/29/24 Page 2 of 2