Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00338/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00338-16/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 

DEXTER BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0338 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

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

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

 On July 1, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

recommended that the claims against defendant Sagireddy be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to prosecute. ECF No. 75. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 

and contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to 

be filed within fourteen days. Id. On July 19, 2016,1

 plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration 

of “all previous findings, recommendations, and orders made in this case after April 1, 2016.” 

ECF No. 76 at 2. 

 

1

 Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox 

rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

Case 2:14-cv-00338-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 08/17/16 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

Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit to his motion another motion for reconsideration dated June 

27, 2016. Id. at 17-19. That motion seeks reconsideration of “the court’s order granting 

defendant[] Purushottama Sagireddy’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Id. at 18. 

Defendant Sagireddy’s motion to dismiss has not been granted, nor has this court recommended 

that the motion be granted. Since the attached motion is dated prior to the court’s 

recommendation that the claims against defendant Sagireddy be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute, it appears that plaintiff misinterpreted the court’s May 23, 2016 order (ECF No. 73), 

which directed him to respond to defendant Sagireddy’s motion to dismiss or face dismissal, as an 

order granting the motion to dismiss. Because plaintiff clearly opposes the claims against 

defendant Sagireddy being dismissed, the court will construe his motion for reconsideration as 

objections to the July 1, 2016 findings and recommendations. Moreover, because plaintiff has 

expressed a desire to continue to pursue his claims against defendant Sagireddy, the July 1, 2016 

findings and recommendations will be vacated and plaintiff will be given thirty days to file an 

opposition to defendant Sagireddy’s motion to dismiss. 

Although the July 1, 2016 findings and recommendations will be vacated, the court will 

also address the apparent delay in plaintiff’s filings. Plaintiff alleges that on two prior occasions 

he mailed the court motions and declarations. Id. at 2. The first motion requested additional time 

and the second challenged the dismissal of his claims against defendant Sagireddy. Id. He claims 

that the motions must have been removed from his legal mail after it was handed over to 

correctional staff. Id. at 3. Plaintiff states that his motion for extension of time was mailed on 

May 31, 2016, and attaches a copy of the motion and the mail log showing when it was mailed. 

Id. at 3, 4-8. The motion was not received in this case. However, identical motions were filed in 

Brown v. Miller (Miller), 2:15-cv-1687 GEB CMK, and Brown v. Naseer (Naseer), 2:14-cv-0225 

WBS CKD, two other actions plaintiff is currently pursuing in this court. Brown, ECF No. 13; 

Naseer, ECF No. 62. The motions filed in those actions were labeled with only the case number 

of the action in which they were filed. 

Additionally, while the motion plaintiff states was mailed on June 28, 2016, was not 

received in any of his currently pending cases in this court, a letter from plaintiff dated June 28, 

Case 2:14-cv-00338-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 08/17/16 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

2016, and addressed to Governor Brown, was filed by the Clerk of the Court in Brown v. Brown 

(Brown II), 2:15-cv-1787 JAM KJN, on June 30, 2016. Brown II, ECF No. 8. It appears that 

plaintiff did not label the letter with a case number and that the Clerk of the Court determined that 

it was meant to be filed in Brown II, likely due to the fact that the letter was addressed to the lead 

named defendant in that case. 

The mail logs submitted by plaintiff indicate that he mailed a single envelope to the court 

on each day. ECF No. 76 at 5, 16. In light of the court’s receipt of other documents purportedly 

mailed on those days, it appears that plaintiff forgot to include copies of the motions to be filed in 

this action, or possibly mixed up the contents of the envelopes he mailed on those days. Going 

forward, plaintiff would be well-advised to double-check the contents of his envelopes prior to 

mailing them and to ensure that all documents are properly labeled with the case number in which 

he wants them filed. 

 Finally, plaintiff’s motion seeks reconsideration of “all previous findings, 

recommendations, and orders made in this case after April 1, 2016.” ECF No. 76 at 2. In 

addition to the order (ECF No. 73) and findings and recommendations (ECF No. 75) filed 

regarding the claims against defendant Sagireddy, the court also issued findings and 

recommendations that recommended the dismissal of defendants Wright, Li, Burck, and 

Chipendo because plaintiff failed to return completed service packets (ECF No. 72). Those 

findings and recommendations were adopted in full and the claims against defendants Wright, Li, 

Burck, and Chipendo were dismissed on June 17, 2016. ECF No. 74. Neither plaintiff’s motion 

for reconsideration nor any of the attached documents make any mention of the dismissal of these 

defendants. If plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order dismissing defendants Wright, Li, 

Burck, and Chipendo, he will need to file a motion that specifically addresses that order. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 76) is construed as objections to the 

July 1, 2016 findings and recommendations. 

 2. The July 1, 2016 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 75) are vacated. 

//// 

Case 2:14-cv-00338-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 08/17/16 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

 3. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from service of this order to file a response to defendant 

Sagireddy’s motion to dismiss. 

 4. If plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order dismissing defendants Wright, Li, Burck, 

and Chipendo (ECF No. 74), he will need to file a motion specifically addressing that order. 

DATED: August 16, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00338-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 08/17/16 Page 4 of 4