Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01323-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01323 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On April 17, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 21. No party has 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 

207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 

magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 

///// 

Case 2:22-cv-01323-KJM-DMC Document 24 Filed 06/23/23 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 

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

The court finds this action is related with Elliott v. Campose, case no. 2:22-cv-1236-DMC. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a). The parties should be aware that relating cases under Local Rule 123 

causes the actions to be assigned to the same judge – it does not consolidate the actions. Under 

Local Rule 123, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom 

the first filed action was assigned. Here, the magistrate judge presiding over Elliott v. Campose, 

no. 2:22-cv-1236-DMC, is the one assigned with the lower numbered case. However, the parties 

in case no. 22-cv-1236-DMC have consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, so no 

district judge is assigned to that case. Accordingly, the court reassigns the magistrate judge in 

this action from Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations issued April 17, 2023 (ECF No. 21), are 

ADOPTED in full; 

 2. This action is RELATED to Elliott v. Campose, No. 22-cv-1236 DMC, under Local 

Rule 123(a)(1)-(3); 

 3. This action is REASSIGNED from Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to Magistrate 

Judge Dennis M. Cota. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall be 

shown as: No. 2:22-cv-01323-KJM-DMC; 

 4. The court acknowledges there is a settlement conference set before Magistrate Judge 

Newman on July 18, 2023, Minute Order, ECF No. 22, and an order and writ of habeas corpus ad 

testificandum, Writ, ECF No. 23. The settlement conference is maintained on the calendar, with 

any case management issues related to the settlement conference referred to Magistrate Judge 

Cota; and 

 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of 

civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. 

DATED: June 22, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01323-KJM-DMC Document 24 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 2