Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00772/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00772-6/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Calvin Holt is appearing pro se 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 December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “motion for confirmation that it is lawful” for the 

Magistrate Judge to remain assign to this case. (ECF No. 32.) 

To the extent Plaintiff contends that it was improper for the Magistrate Judge to issue the 

screening order because he did not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, a party’s decision to 

decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction affects only the Magistrate Judge’s ability to issue rulings on 

dispositive matters. The Magistrate Judge’s screening orders which advised Plaintiff of the applicable 

legal standards and granted leave to amend, was not a dispositive order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Local 

Rule 72-302(c). 

CALVIN HOLT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

W. GARDNER,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00772-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CONFIRMATION THAT IT IS LAWFUL 

FOR THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO REMAIN 

ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE

[ECF No. 32]

Case 1:19-cv-00772-DAD-SAB Document 38 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Turning to Plaintiff’s substantive disagreement with Magistrate Judge’s screening orders, 

reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodger v. Watt, 722 F.2d 

456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 

1987). “A Magistrate Judge’s screening order is not a final order dispositive of a claim or defense. 

Reid v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS, 2015 WL 2235127, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 

2015). Under Rule 72(a), a party may object to any nondispositive orders entered by a magistrate 

judge, and a district judge is required to “consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part 

of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Likewise, Local 

Rule 303(c) states: “A party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate judge’s ruling shall file a 

request for reconsideration by a Judge and serve the Magistrate Judge and all parties. Such relief shall 

specifically designate the ruling, or part thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection.” 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the ... court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 

an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 

Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). “A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise 

arguments to present or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised in earlier litigation.” Id. Furthermore, “ ‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more 

than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation...’” of that which was already 

considered by the court in rendering its decision.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quotations omitted). 

Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge omitted “an entire reference to the Plaintiff’s third 

claim of the Second Quarterly Package/Parcel mail violations by W. Gardner, et al., that unequivocally 

illustrates ‘multiple mail violations s[pe]cifically by W. Gardner et al.”. (ECF No. 32.) A review of 

the Magistrate Judge’s screening orders reveals that he clearly identified the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s 

complaints, provided the applicable legal standards, and the ability to amend to cure the deficiencies. 

(ECF Nos. 4, 16.) Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decisions are not grounds for relief from 

such orders, and Plaintiff has set forth no meritorious legal arguments supporting his position that he is 

entitled to relief from such orders. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to clarify his claims, the Magistrate 

Case 1:19-cv-00772-DAD-SAB Document 38 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Judge granted him an opportunity to file an amended complaint, and Plaintiff has filed a second 

amended complaint on December 18, 2019. (ECF No. 27.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00772-DAD-SAB Document 38 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3