Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00887-6/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

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

and a request to stay the scheduling order. Plaintiff alleges that on March 25, 2006, he was

placed in administrative segregation (ad seg) after being accused of threatening a correctional

officer. Plaintiff alleges that he does not have access to his legal property.

Local Rule 72-302 of the Eastern District of California permits magistrate judges

to handle all aspects of a prisoner’s case short of jury trial. It has also been interpreted as

authorizing magistrate judges to issue orders under § 636(b)(1)(A) for non-dispositive motions or

motions not involving injunctive relief. See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673,

100 S. Ct. 2406, 2411 (1980) (magistrate judge may hear any pretrial matter except “dispositive”

motions).

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 47 Filed 05/11/06 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

2

 Therefore, the fact that parties are directed in their activities by a magistrate judge

cannot, without more, transform the matter at hand into an “injunctive” relief matter governed by 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). See, e.g., Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir.

1991) (magistrate judge may compel a party to pay prospective sanctions of $500.00 per day

during period of non-compliance with discovery orders to ensure compliance). It is only when

the “injunctive” relief sought goes to the merits of plaintiff’s actions or to complete stays of an

action that orders under § 636(b)(1)(A) are precluded. See, e.g., Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d

414 (9th Cir. 1992).

In the instant case, plaintiff’s request does not go to the merits of plaintiff’s

action. Accordingly, this matter may be handled by court order.

Plaintiff is directed to inform the court whether he has been granted access to his

legal property regarding this action since the filing of his motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 17, 2006, motion for injunctive relief is construed as a motion

for a protective order;

2. Plaintiff shall inform the court within twenty days of the date of this order

regarding whether he has access to his legal property regarding this action. 

DATED: 5/10/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

high887.ord

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 47 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2