Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00504/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00504-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK HUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 26)

Plaintiff Mark Hunt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 19, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s due process claim be dismissed for failure to 

state a cognizable claim and this action proceed on plaintiff’s excessive force claim against 

defendants D. Diaz, A. Velasquez, J. Brainard, G. Solorio, and K. Reyes.

1

 (Doc. No. 21.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to file objections 

/////

 

1

 In the present motion, plaintiff asks how dismissal of his due process claim impacts his case. 

(Doc. No. 26 at 2.) As stated in the December 6, 2019 order, (Doc. No. 22), plaintiff can continue 

to litigate this case by proceeding on his Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim. (Doc. 

No. 22 at 2.)

Case 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB Document 37 Filed 04/06/20 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

within the twenty-one day objection period. The undersigned adopted the findings and

recommendations on December 6, 2019. (Doc. No. 22.)

Now before the court is plaintiff’s filing of January 6, 2020, entitled: “Notice of Equitable 

Tolling and Motion for Cognizable Claim.” (Doc. No. 26.) The court construes plaintiff’s filing 

as a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 22.) “A motion for reconsideration should not be 

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 

law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they 

could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations 

omitted) (emphasis in original).

Here, plaintiff requests additional time to object to the findings and recommendations 

because the facility in which he is incarcerated is regularly on lockdown, impacting his ability to 

use the law library in preparation for the motions in this action. (Doc. No. 26 at 1.) While the 

court has the discretion to “review[] the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in light 

of plaintiff’s objections, as if those objections were timely filed,” Zapata v. Flintco, Inc., No. 

CIV-S-09-3555-GEB, 2011 WL 4771952, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011), plaintiff has only 

submitted an untimely request for additional time to file objections and has still not set forth any 

objections or evidence in support thereof or even suggested what his objections might be. Rather, 

plaintiff simply states that he has objections to the findings and recommendations and evidence 

pertaining to his due process claim without presenting either. (Doc. No. 26 at 1, 2.) As such, 

plaintiff has not demonstrated grounds upon which the court can grant his motion for 

reconsideration. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB Document 37 Filed 04/06/20 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

Accordingly, plaintiff’s filing (Doc. No. 26), deemed to be a motion for reconsideration, is 

denied.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2

 Plaintiff also seeks clarification as to why his case has been referred back to a magistrate judge 

and whether he can file a motion to keep his case with the undersigned. (Doc. No. 26 at 2.) All 

actions brought by prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, like plaintiff’s, are assigned to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. In those actions, the assigned 

magistrate judge issues findings and recommendations addressing any dispositive motions, which 

the assigned district judge then reviews de novo and either adopts or declines by way of a written 

order. The court will not vary from this practice put in place by its local rules in this case. The 

undersigned also notes that on June 26, 2019, plaintiff filed his consent to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction for all purposes, including trial and entry of judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

(Doc. No. 12.) Although the defendants have not filed a consent at this time, the Ninth Circuit 

has recently suggested that §636(c) “seems to contemplate a contemporaneous or nearcontemporaneous decision [to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction] by the parties, not 

piecemeal acceptance over the course of years of litigation.” Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 

994, 1000 n.4 (9th Cir. 2019). Nonetheless, plaintiff is advised that were defendants to file a 

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as long as plaintiff’s consent remains effective, this 

action would be referred to the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes and the assignment to a 

district judge would be withdrawn.

Case 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB Document 37 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 3