Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01320/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01320-8/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

BINH TRAN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

E. SMITH,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG (PC)

 

ORDER VACATING ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(ECF NO. 31)

Binh Tran (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and attendant state law claim for 

common law negligence. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, 

filed on February 17, 2015, against defendant Sergeant E. Smith on Eighth Amendment and 

negligence claims. (ECF No. 13).

On August 19, 2016, Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim. (ECF No. 27). On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 

motion. (ECF No. 29). On October 4, 2016, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 30). On 

November 7, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim (“the Order”). (ECF No. 31). 

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 2
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

On November 22, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration by the district 

court of the magistrate judge’s order denying Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 

(ECF No. 32).

Because it appears that Defendant has not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, 

this Court’s Order was entered in error. Therefore, the Court will vacate the Order and will 

instead issue findings and recommendations consistent with the Court’s orders. Both parties 

will have an opportunity to object to the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the order denying 

Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 31) is 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2