Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02611/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02611-16/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 

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-2611 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed various 

motions for relief. ECF Nos. 70-73, 80-81. 

Two of plaintiff’s motions seek an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. 

ECF Nos. 73, 80. Good cause appearing, the motions will be granted. 

Plaintiff has also filed two motions for extension of time to file and serve objections to the 

December 12, 2019 order denying several of his motions.1

 ECF Nos. 70, 72. Plaintiff has 

simultaneously filed a document entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations and its Points and Authorities and its Conclusion.” ECF No. 75. Though the 

objections do not specify the date or docket number of the “findings and recommendations” to 

 

1

 Although plaintiff’s captions refer to the order as findings and recommendations, the contents 

of the motions explicitly refer to the December 12, 2019 order by date and he references the 

previous extension of time granted at ECF No. 66. ECF Nos. 70, 72. 

Case 2:17-cv-02611-KJM-AC Document 82 Filed 02/27/20 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 

which plaintiff is objecting, they address the matters adjudicated in the December 12, 2019 

order.2 Id. For clarity, the Clerk of the Court will therefore be directed to update the docket to 

identify the objections as a motion for reconsideration by the district judge under Local Rule 

303(c).3 Because plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is already timely, the motions for an 

extension of time are moot and will be denied as such. Plaintiff is advised that in the future, the 

title of any objections or motions for reconsideration must identify the findings and 

recommendations or order they address by either date or docket number. Failure to properly 

identify the findings and recommendations or order being addressed will result in the objections 

or motion for reconsideration being disregarded. See L.R. 230(j), 303(c) (requiring identification 

of the decision for which reconsideration is sought). 

Next, plaintiff has filed a motion for a court order referring this cause of action to the 

District Court’s Judicial Committee “for review and investigation.” ECF No. 71. Because the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California does not have such a committee, 

this motion will be denied. 

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion in which he requests that the court order the FBI to 

investigate the prison’s alleged perjury and removal of his medical records. ECF No. 81. The 

requested relief is outside the scope of this court’s authority and will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, ECF Nos. 

73, 80, are granted, and he shall have thirty days from the service of this order to file a second 

amended complaint. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, ECF 

Nos. 70, 72, are denied as moot. 

//// 

 

2

 Plaintiff has previously referred to the December 12, 2019 order as findings and 

recommendations, even though it does not contain findings and recommendations. See ECF Nos. 

66, 70, 72. 

3

 The Clerk of the Court will also be directed to update the docket to reflect that the motion for 

reconsideration filed at ECF No. 74 seeks reconsideration of the district judge’s January 15, 2020 

order at ECF No. 68. 

Case 2:17-cv-02611-KJM-AC Document 82 Filed 02/27/20 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 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that the objections 

filed at ECF No. 75 are a motion for reconsideration by the district judge of the magistrate 

judge’s December 12, 2019 order at ECF No. 65. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that the motion for 

reconsideration filed at ECF No. 74 seeks reconsideration of the district judge’s January 15, 2020 

order at ECF No. 68. 

 5. Plaintiff’s motion for referral, ECF No. 71, is denied. 

 6. Plaintiff’s motion for an FBI investigation, ECF No. 81, is denied. 

DATED: February 27, 2020 

Case 2:17-cv-02611-KJM-AC Document 82 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3