Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01404-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERNAN OROZCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-1404-MCE-CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8, of the magistrate judge’s 

August 27, 2014, Order converting this case to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Pursuant to 

E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it does not appear that 

the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to argue that he has standing to enforce any order issued in Plata 

v. Brown, No. 01-cv-1351-TEH (N.D. Cal.) as an intended third-party beneficiary under Rule 71 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see U.S. v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813, 819-820 (9th Cir. 

2008), he may assert that argument in Plata, pending in the Northern District of California, but 

not in this action.

///

///

Case 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 10/30/14 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

 Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8, is DENIED; and

2. The magistrate judge’s August 27, 2014, Order, ECF No. 7, is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 10/30/14 Page 2 of 2