Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01049/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01049-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEAN C. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1049 MCE KJN (P)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Motion”). ECF No. 68. For the reasons that follow, 

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff alleges that the magistrate judge issued three orders addressing dispositive issues 

when both parties had not consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. In particular, 

Plaintiff cites the June 11, 2014 order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend (ECF 

No. 9), the September 5, 2014 order dismissing all Defendants named in the Second Amended 

Complaint except for Defendants Foulk, St. Andre and Matis (ECF No. 18), and the January 5, 

2015 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 30). 

Plaintiff now requests an opportunity to file objections to these three orders. 

///

Case 2:14-cv-01049-MCE-KJN Document 80 Filed 01/15/16 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

Court records indicate that on May 5, 2014, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the 

magistrate judge. ECF No. 5. On January 6, 2015, the magistrate judge ordered the U.S. Marshal 

to serve Defendants Foulk, St. Andre and Matis. ECF No. 31. On March 9, 2015, Defendants 

Foulk, St. Andre and Matis filed a motion to sever. ECF No. 41. On April 3, 2015, the 

magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ motion to sever be granted and ordered the Clerk 

of the Court to appoint a district judge to this action. ECF No. 45.

At the time the magistrate judge issued the orders cited by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 9, 18, 30), 

Plaintiff had consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction and Defendants had not appeared in 

this action. Therefore, to the extent these orders could be characterized as dispositive, the 

magistrate judge was authorized to issue these orders. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief (ECF No. 68) 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01049-MCE-KJN Document 80 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2