Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00412-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00412-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ASSIGNMENT OF A DISTRICT JUDGE 

AND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

SCREENING ORDER BY A DISTRICT

JUDGE

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K’napp is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 28, 2009, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims. On August 12,

2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to have the screening order reconsidered by a United States

District Judge, and a stay pending the district judge’s order. Plaintiff ’s motion was denied on

August 19, 2009. On August 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed another motion seeking the assignment of a

district judge to this case and for reconsideration of the screening order by a district judge. 

As Plaintiff was previously informed, Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction on March 23, 2009. Therefore, this action was assigned to the undersigned pursuant to

Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff did not exercise

his right to request reassignment to a district judge at the initiation of this action. Appendix A(k)(3).

Because Plaintiff instead consented, Appendix A(k)(4) is the governing subsection. Plaintiff’s

disagreement with the Court’s screening order provides no basis for the withdrawal of his earlier 

///

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/08/09 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

consent, and this case will remain assigned to the undersigned. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480

(9th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the assignment of a district judge to this case and for

reconsideration of the screening order by a district judge is DENIED, with prejudice;

and

2. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to comply with the order to file an amended complaint,

or this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 4, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 14 Filed 09/08/09 Page 2 of 2