Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02611/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02611-14/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 

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-2611 KJM 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 as provided 

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

 On July 31, 2019, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and recommendations, 

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 41. Plaintiff has 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations, as well as to the order denying his motion 

for counsel and the screening order. ECF No. 56. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. With 

respect to the objections to the screening order and denial of counsel, Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 2:17-cv-02611-KJM-AC Document 68 Filed 01/15/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate judges 

and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly 

erroneous or is contrary to law.” The July 31, 2019 orders of the magistrate judge are not clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law and the objections will be overruled. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 6, 2019 order 

denying his motions to amend other motions (ECF No. 60) and objections to the order (ECF 

No. 61). Local Rule 303(f) provides that a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration states only that his 

motions should be granted and refers the court to his simultaneously filed objections. The court 

has reviewed his objections to the order and finds that the magistrate judge’s September 6, 2019 

order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 31, 2019 (ECF No. 41), are adopted in 

full. 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 29, 31, 36-40) are denied 

without prejudice. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 62) is denied 

for the same reasons outlined in the July 31, 2019 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 41). 

3. Plaintiff’s objections to the July 31, 2019 order (ECF No. 56) are overruled. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 60) is denied. 

5. Plaintiff’s objections to the September 6, 2019 order (ECF No. 61) are overruled. 

6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings. 

DATED: January 14, 2020. 

Case 2:17-cv-02611-KJM-AC Document 68 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2