Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00789-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SULLIVAN,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-789 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REASSIGNMENT (Doc. 33.)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HAVE

UNDERSIGNED REMOVED AND

REPLACED AND ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT

COURT JUDGE (Doc. 34.)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MANDATE

DEFENDANT TO RELEASE RELEVANT

DOCUMENTS (Doc. 35.) 

 Michael Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for Reassignment of Judge. Plaintiff submitted a similar motion titled “Motion to Have

U.S. Magistrate Snyder Removed and Replaced and Reassigned to a U.S. District Judge” on

August 18, 2006. On January 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Mandate

Defendant to Release Relevant documents pertaining to the present active case.” The Court will

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/09/07 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

address each motion in turn. 

A. MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT

Plaintiff states that pursuant to Local Rule 73-305, he has the right to request that a case

be reassigned to a U.S. District Judge and thus, he exercises that right to have this case removed

from the undersigned. 

Plaintiff’s interpretation of Local Rule 73-305 is incorrect. Local Rule 73-305 provides

that the parties may “consent to have a Magistrate Judge conduct any and all proceedings.” 

Local Rule 73-305(a). Upon consent, the case is then referred to the Magistrate Judge for all

proceedings, including disposition of the case. Local Rule 72-304(a) provides that the Magistrate

Judges in this District shall hear certain matters and dispose of them as appropriate. The

undersigned’s disposition of many of the Motions filed in Plaintiff’s case are in accordance with

her authority under Local Rule 72-304, and 28 U.S.C. § 636. Contrary to Plaintiff’s belief,

however, Plaintiff has no right under Local Rule 73-305(a) to choose to have only the District

Court Judge hear his case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reassignment to District Court

Judge is DENIED. 

B. MOTION FOR REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT AND REASSIGNMENT

On August 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a second motion making the same assertions as he did

in the prior Motion for Reassignment. Plaintiff again states that pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c)(2) he can move to have his case reassigned to a District Court Judge. As stated above,

Section 636(b) authorizes a District Court to refer cases and certain matters to the Magistrate

Judge assigned. The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California require the assigned

Magistrate Judges to hear all non-dispositive matters and resolve them and issue Findings and

Recommendations to the District Court Judge assigned on dispositive matters. The federal

statute cited by Plaintiff does not give him the right to have his case reassigned solely to the

District Court Judge. Accordingly, the Motion for Removal, Replacement and Reassignment is

DENIED. 

C. MOTION TO MANDATE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

On January 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting the Court issue an Order requiring

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/09/07 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

the Defendants to provide him with certain documents. Plaintiff states that he has written to the

Court several times regarding his right to “access to court” which includes getting all legal

documents pertaining to his case. Plaintiff states that his rights are being violated under the

authority of the Warden and that the Court should now intervene. Other than this one page

statement, plaintiff provides no information as to what documents he seeks or how his right of

access is being impeded. Even had Plaintiff provided sufficient information, however, his

request would be denied. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff was informed of this requirement in the Court’s Order denying a

Motion for service of the Complaint issued on July 18, 2006. 

As stated there, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s case to determine whether or not it

states a cognizable claim for relief. Until such a determination is made, the Court can and will

not enter an order to serve the defendants with the summons and complaint and answer the

allegations of the Complaint. Until an Answer is filed, discovery cannot be had. This means that

Plaintiff cannot obtain relevant documents relating to his case using the mechanism of discovery. 

Plaintiff may obtain any documents he is entitled to through the prison process without the use of

the discovery device, however, he may not obtain assistance of the Court until such time as

discovery is opened. 

Second, the right to access the courts is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus

proceedings, and civil rights actions challenging conditions of confinement. Id. at 354-55. 

While this is a civil rights proceeding, the Supreme Court has held that the Supreme Court

defined prisoners’ right of access to the courts as simply the “right to bring to court a grievance.”

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). The Court specifically rejected the notion that the

state must enable a prisoner to “litigate effectively once in court.” Id. (quoting and disclaiming

language contained in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825-26 (1977)); see also Cornett v.

Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9 Cir. 1995) (determining that prisoners’ right of access to the th

courts is limited to the pleading stage of a civil rights action or petition for writ of habeas

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/09/07 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

corpus). Plaintiff’s complaint about obtaining document concerns his ability to litigate

effectively in this action. Based on the aforementioned authority, Plaintiff’s Motion to release

documents is DENIED. 

D. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reassignment of Judge is DENIED; 

2. The Motion to Have U.S. Magistrate Judge removed, replaced and reassigned is

DENIED; and 

3. The Motion to mandate Defendant to release documents is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 36 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 4