Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01163/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01163-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON C. REID,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 16)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights and tort action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.

On November 24, 2014, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case screened 

Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. 

(ECF No. 13.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed objections to the screening order (ECF No. 16), 

which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows parties to file objections to 

nondispositive orders decided by a Magistrate Judge. “The district judge in the case 

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 25 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 4
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

must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is 

clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.

Similarly, Local Rule 303(c) allows parties to seek reconsideration by a District 

Judge of a Magistrate Judge’s pretrial rulings. Local Rule 303(c). The assigned District 

Judge shall review all such requests for reconsideration under the "clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Local Rule 303(f) (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

Plaintiff first objects that the Magistrate Judge did not have authority to screen his 

complaint because Plaintiff did not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. The 

Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The Magistrate 

Judge's Screening Order was not a final order, dispositive of a claim or defense, and 

therefore is not outside the Magistrate Judge's statutorily granted jurisdiction. See

Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965, 970 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Courts in 

this district have upheld a Magistrate Judge's authority to screen complaints, so long as 

any dismissal is not dispositive and leave to amend is granted. E.g., Robinson v. Adams, 

No. 1:08–CV–1380 AWI GSA PC, 2009 WL 1953167, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2009). 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not exceed his statutory authority in dismissing 

with leave to amend.

B. Authority to Screen for Misjoined Claims

Plaintiff next objects that the screening order exceeded the Court’s authority to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that improperly joined claims do not “fail to state a claim,”

and thus cannot be dismissed at the screening stage. Plaintiff also states that the action 

may not be dismissed due to improperly joined claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 25 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Procedure 21 and Williams v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 

467 Fed. Appx. 672 (2012).

The Court has authority to screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Both provisions require the Court to dismiss an 

action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Additionally, misjoined parties may be dropped by the Court on its own motion at any 

time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention that the Court lacks authority 

to address misjoinder at the screening stage is incorrect. Additionally, Plaintiff’s 

contention that the Court lacks authority to dismiss his action for misjoinder is inapposite. 

Plaintiff’s action was not dismissed in its entirety; rather, Plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed with leave to amend.

C. Whether Claims Were Misjoined

Plaintiff further contends that his claims are properly joined, with the possible 

exception of his loss of outdoor exercise claim and deprivation of personal property 

claim. He asserts that these claims nevertheless all should be joined because they 

involve similar questions of fact and law, i.e., the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens.

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that many of Plaintiff’s claims do not 

arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Plaintiff was advised to decide which 

transaction or occurrence he wishes to pursue in this action. He further was advised that 

he may join other claims involving the same defendants involved in his chosen 

transaction or occurrence. He may not join unrelated claims against additional 

defendants. The Magistrate Judge’s ruling in this regard was not clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not presented a basis for reconsideration

of the Magistrate Judge’s screening order. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 25 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

1. Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 16), which the Court construes as a motion 

for reconsideration, are DENIED;

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date 

this order;

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

the action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to comply with a 

court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4.

Case 1:14-cv-01163-CDB Document 25 Filed 05/12/15 Page 4 of 4