Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01996-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN R. TOWNZEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1996 DFL DAD P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. On November 9, 2006, the

magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, granted plaintiff thirty days to pay

the filing fee or file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied six

miscellaneous requests and motions. Plaintiff has filed a document titled “Objection/Motion for the

Court to Vacate its Nov. 9, 2006 Court Order in the Instant Case.” 

Plaintiff’s filing will be construed as a request for reconsideration by the district court

of a magistrate judge’s ruling. See Local Rule 72-303(c) (permitting a party who is dissatisfied with

a magistrate judge’s order to seek reconsideration by filing a document titled “Request for

Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling”).

Reconsideration must be sought within ten court days calculated from the date on

which the Clerk of the Court serves the magistrate judge’s order. See Local Rule 72-303(b). The

Case 2:06-cv-01996-RRB-DAD Document 24 Filed 07/30/07 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

2

order at issue was served on plaintiff at his address of record on November 9, 2006. Due to

plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of a change of address, plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned

to the court on November 20, 2006. The order was re-served on plaintiff at a new address on

December 19, 2006. In the interests of justice, the court will consider plaintiff’s untimely request

for reconsideration.

Plaintiff asserts first that he has not consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), a magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings in a civil matter

and order entry of judgment in the case upon consent of the parties. In addition, in cases in which

the parties have not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes, a district judge

may nevertheless designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending

before the court except those matters specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The district judge may

also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and

recommendations for the disposition by the judge of excepted motions and “prisoner petitions

challenging conditions of confinement.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

In the Eastern District of California, magistrate judges are designated to perform all

duties permitted by law in cases brought by persons in custody seeking relief authorized by 42

U.S.C. § 1983, including dispositive and non-dispositive motions and matters. Local Rule 72-302(a)

and (c)(17). Although a district judge may retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a

magistrate judge, requests for retention of such matters are looked upon with disfavor and granted

only in unusual and compelling circumstances. Local Rule 72-302(d). Plaintiff has not shown that

there are unusual and compelling circumstances that warrant retention of this case.

Plaintiff asserts next that this case “was in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court,

District of Columbia.” He argues that his mother “obtained the file number for the case in the

District of Columbia from this Court.” Plaintiff is mistaken. District courts do not provide litigants

with case numbers for cases to be filed in other courts. If plaintiff wishes to dismiss this action and

file an action in another court, he may do so.

Case 2:06-cv-01996-RRB-DAD Document 24 Filed 07/30/07 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

3

Plaintiff’s contentions regarding alleged inability to appeal and alleged discovery of

new evidence to support old claims do not support plaintiff’s motion to vacate the magistrate judge’s

November 9, 2006 order. Plaintiff’s contention that he sent a change of address to the court on or

about November 4, 2006, is not supported by the record, as no documents were received from

plaintiff for filing in this case between October 11, 2006, and December 12, 2006.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 29, 2006

“Objection/Motion for the Court to Vacate Its Nov. 9, 2006 Court Order,” construed as a request for

reconsideration by the district court, is denied.

ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01996-RRB-DAD Document 24 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 3