Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01084-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYCHAEL TYRONE SHANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING

(Doc. Nos. 67, 69, 72)

Plaintiff Mychael Tyrone Shannon is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. No. 64) granting defendants’ request to optout of the court’s Early Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program. (Doc. No. 69.) 

Defendants filed an opposition on February 4, 2022 (Doc. No. 70) and plaintiff filed a reply 

thereto on February 7, 2022 (Doc. No. 71).

Local Rule 303 provides that “[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically designat[ing] the ruling, 

or party thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection.’” Local Rule 303(c). “The standard 

that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ 

standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” Local Rule 303(f).

/////

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 75 Filed 09/12/22 Page 1 of 3
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

In his pending request for reconsideration, plaintiff contends that defendants’ motion to 

opt out of the ADR program “was riddled with inaccuracies” that “deceived the court” and caused 

the magistrate judge “to make an erroneous ruling.” (Doc. No. 69 at 2.) In particular, plaintiff 

objects to the defendants’ assertion that the inmate advisory committee at the institution in which 

plaintiff is imprisoned addressed plaintiff’s request for an alarm clock. (Id.) Plaintiff also 

contends that he should have received an opportunity to respond to the defendants’ motion to opt 

out of the ADR program prior to the magistrate judge granting defendants’ motion. (Id.)

After review of the record relevant to this matter, the undersigned does not find the 

magistrate judge’s order granting defendants’ request to opt-out of the court’s ADR program to 

be erroneous or contrary to law. In particular, defendants presented evidence that their 

representation regarding the inmate advisory committee rejecting plaintiff’s request for an alarm 

clock was obtained from plaintiff’s own inmate appeal. (Doc. No. 70 at 3, 5, 11.) Furthermore, 

plaintiff failed to address any of the other reasons defendants raised as to why use of the court’s 

ADR program would not likely be productive in this case, including a legitimate correctional 

interest in avoiding violence among male inmates and legal issues relating to possible mootness

and a defense based on qualified immunity. (See Doc. Nos. 69, 70 at 3.) Although the magistrate 

judge did not elaborate in his order, it would not be erroneous or contrary to law to grant a 

defendant’s request to opt-out of the court’s ADR program for any of those reasons, none of 

which plaintiff has addressed in the pending motion for reconsideration. 

 Accordingly, 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 69) is denied; 

2. The magistrate judge’s order issued on December 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 64) is left in 

place; 

3. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time (Doc. Nos. 67, 72), are denied as 

having been rendered moot; and

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 75 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. No further motions for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order issued on 

December 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 64) will be considered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 75 Filed 09/12/22 Page 3 of 3