Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-54/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING CONSENT 

MOTION AND DENYING MOTION FOR 

ORDER OF MANIFEST INJUSTICE

(Docs. 198 and 199)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Darren Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on January 3, 2005. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff=s fourth amended complaint against Defendants Olivarria, 

Williams, and Kim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Olivarria and 

Lowden for violation of the First Amendment. This case was set for jury trial on January 26, 

2016, but the trial date was vacated on December 4, 2015, after the Court was notified Plaintiff’s 

property had been packed and stored pending his transfer to a new institution. On December 15, 

2015, and on December 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed miscellaneous motions seeking relief related to 

the issues of consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and access to his legal property.

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 200 Filed 12/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

II. Discussion

A. Order Addressing Consent Motion

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a statement regarding his “non-consent” to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and missing property boxes. Plaintiff entitled his filing a motion and 

as a result, it was docketed as such. Consent to or decline of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction is an 

issue of election for each party rather than the subject of a motion. Therefore, the Clerk’s Office 

shall administratively terminate the motion. Plaintiff previously declined Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction and that decline remains in effect in the absence of consent. (Doc. 98.) 

Plaintiff may address his property status at the hearing on February 1, 2016. For the 

reasons set forth below, no further discussion or relief is warranted at this juncture. 

B. Motion for “Order of Manifest Injustice”

On December 4, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance, vacated the 

dates set in the pretrial order, and set a telephonic status conference for February 1, 2016, to 

address Plaintiff’s property access given his recent transfer to a new institution. On December 18, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an “order of manifest injustice, for record in the court.” 

(Doc. 199, p. 2.) 

Plaintiff misapprehends his present entitlement to any further relief on this issue. This case 

is not set for trial on February 1, 2016. The Court vacated the trial date and related dates to 

prevent the manifest injustice that would have resulted from requiring Plaintiff to try his case 

without his legal materials. The parties are scheduled to discuss the status of Plaintiff’s property 

access and potential trial dates during the telephonic hearing set for February 1, 2016. Until that 

hearing, nothing further is required of the parties. An “order of manifest injustice” is not a 

recognized form of relief, and any assertion that Plaintiff has suffered manifest injustice as a result 

of the disruption in his property access lacks merit given the Court’s prophylactic order of 

December 4, 2015.

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 200 Filed 12/24/15 Page 2 of 3
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

III. Order

Accordingly, as discussed above, Plaintiff’s “motion for non-consent” (Doc. No. 198) and 

Plaintiff’s motion for an “order of manifest injustice” (Doc. No. 199) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 200 Filed 12/24/15 Page 3 of 3