Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01431/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01431-6/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

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

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1431 KJM P

vs.

C. BAKEWELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 28, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

order filed December 17, 2009, denying plaintiff’s request for medication, construed as a motion

for temporary restraining order. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability.

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge assigned to this case. 

See Docket No. 6. Therefore the magistrate judge had authority to rule on the request for a

change in plaintiff’s medication, which the magistrate judge construed as a motion for a

temporary restraining order. The instant motion for reconsideration is construed under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which lists several grounds for relieving a party from an order of

the court. Having reviewed the motion, the court finds no reason to vacate or amend its previous

order denying plaintiff’s request for pain medication in addition to the treatment he concedes he

Case 2:09-cv-01431-GEB -KJM Document 29 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 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

1

 The court notes that plaintiff has already docketed an interlocutory appeal of the denial

of the temporary restraining order. See Docket No. 22. To the extent plaintiff seeks a statement

from this court allowing him to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), that request is also denied.

2

is already receiving. See Order at 3 (Docket No. 19) (noting there is no dispute that plaintiff is

receiving daily doses of methadone, among other medications, for plaintiff’s chronic ankle pain).

The motion for a certificate of appealability is misplaced. Plaintiff cites Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), which only applies to habeas corpus proceedings. Plaintiff

proceeds under the Civil Rights Act, not any of the federal habeas statutes. Therefore no

certificate of appealability should issue in this case.1

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for certificate of appealability (Docket No. 21) is denied; and

2. The motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 24) is denied. 

DATED: January 15, 2010. 

4

woma1431.recon.wpd

Case 2:09-cv-01431-GEB -KJM Document 29 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2