Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02626/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02626-12/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 

JAMES LEWIS DIXIE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TIM VIRGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2626 LKK DAD P 

ORDER 

 

I. Introduction 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff paid the required filing fee. The action is proceeding on plaintiff’s 

original complaint (ECF No. 1) in which he presented federal constitutional and statutory claims 

premised on the alleged refusal of prison officials to permit him to attend Jumu’ah Prayer 

Services at California State Prison-Sacramento where he is incarcerated. 

 A settlement conference was held on June 20, 2014, and concluded without a settlement 

being reached. (See ECF No. 67.) The court now addresses those matters held in abeyance 

pending the convening of the settlement conference. 

 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court’s order filed February 19, 2014 (ECF No. 43) 

adopting the assigned Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and granting in part and 

denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff argues that he was not timely served with 

Case 2:12-cv-02626-MCE-DAD Document 71 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 6
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

a copy of the underlying findings and recommendations and was thereby denied notice of the 

deficiencies in his complaint and could not timely file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion is denied. However, plaintiff 

will be accorded additional time to file an amended complaint. 

II. Background 

 On February 19, 2014, the undersigned adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations filed January 16, 2014, thereby granting in part and denying in part defendants’ 

motion to dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 43, 39.) As a result, this action now proceeds against 

remaining defendants Fardan and Elia on plaintiff’s claims under the Free Exercise Clauses of the 

United States and California Constitutions, and under the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended 

complaint, within thirty days after the filing date of the court’s order (or by March 21, 2014), that 

cured the noted deficiencies with respect to the dismissed claims. That thirty-day period expired 

without plaintiff filing an amended complaint. On April 4, 2014, defendants filed an answer to 

the complaint. (ECF No. 55.) Thereafter, on April 11, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a 

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 56), which is presently in effect. 

 Meanwhile, on March 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Relief from the District Court 

Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff asserts therein that he was 

not timely served with a copy of the findings and recommendations, and therefore did not have 

the opportunity to file objections thereto. Plaintiff, however, does not identify the objections he 

wished to raise. 

 Review of plaintiff’s memorandum and attached exhibits, and review of the court’s 

docket, generally supports plaintiff’s statement that he did not timely receive a copy of the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Despite a notation in the docket that a copy of 

the findings and recommendations were promptly served on plaintiff by mail on January 16, 

2014, plaintiff’s prison mail log indicates that he thereafter received no mail from this court until 

February 10, February 14, and February 20, 2014. (See Pl.’s Incoming Mail Log (ECF No. 49 at 

16).) Under any of these scenarios, the time for filing objections (14 days after January 16, 2014, 

Case 2:12-cv-02626-MCE-DAD Document 71 Filed 07/23/14 Page 2 of 6
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

or by January 30, 2014) had expired. Plaintiff avers, with supporting documentation and without 

any obvious inconsistencies reflected in the court’s docket, which he did not did not receive a 

copy of the findings and recommendations at issue until February 20, 2014.1 As noted, the court 

adopted the findings and recommendations one day earlier, on February 19, 2014. (ECF No. 43.) 

III. Applicable Legal Standards 

 Local Rule 230(j) requires that any motion for reconsideration set forth “the material facts 

and circumstances surrounding” the motion and, in pertinent part, “why the facts or circumstances 

were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j). Plaintiff’s motion 

satisfies these requirements. 

 The instant motion is properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Although plaintiff relies on subsection (b)(1) (“mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”), his motion is more appropriately considered under 

the broader umbrella of subsection (b)(6) (“any other reason that justifies relief”). Rule 60(b)(6) 

applies in extraordinary circumstances, not otherwise expressly addressed by Rule 60. Its 

purpose is to “vest[] power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such 

action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15 

(1949). 

 As plaintiff emphasizes, when a district judge delegates to a magistrate judge the task of 

issuing findings and recommendations, the authority of the magistrate judge is provisional. See 

///// 

///// 

 

1

 Plaintiff explains that he submitted three requests for case status (filed February 5, 12, and 18, 

2014) before receiving a copy of the findings and recommendations. (See ECF Nos. 40-2; see 

also ECF No. 49 at 16.) Plaintiff states, and the docket reflects, that he was informed, in response 

to his first request for case status filed February 5, 2014, that findings and recommendations were 

issued on January 16, 2014, and remained pending. (ECF No. 40.) The docket indicates no 

response to plaintiff’s February 12, 2014 request for case status. (ECF No. 41.) On February 13, 

2014, plaintiff signed and mailed a letter requesting a copy of the findings and recommendations, 

on the ground that he had not yet been served with them; the letter was filed on February 18, 

2014. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff states that he did not receive a copy of the findings and 

recommendations until February 20, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02626-MCE-DAD Document 71 Filed 07/23/14 Page 3 of 6
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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).2 If no objections to the findings and recommendations are filed, then the 

district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 

made by the magistrate judge,” without conducting a de novo review. Id. However, when 

objections are made, the district judge is required to undertake a de novo review. Id.; see also, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate 

judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 304 (requiring adherence 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). 

IV. Analysis 

 In the instant case, no objections were filed by any party in response to the findings and 

recommendations. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations after 

conducting a de novo review. (See ECF No. 43 at 2.) As this court explained (id. at 1): 

 

2

 A magistrate judge may issue findings and recommendations for the district judge’s review 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in pertinent part: 

§ 636(b)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary-- 

(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine 

any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion . . . to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

. . . . A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under 

this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate 

judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct 

hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of 

the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the 

disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in 

subparagraph (A). . . . 

(C) the magistrate judge shall file his proposed findings and 

recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy 

shall forthwith be mailed to all parties. 

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may 

serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and 

recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the 

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 

by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further 

evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions. 

Case 2:12-cv-02626-MCE-DAD Document 71 Filed 07/23/14 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and 

Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. 

 Because the court applied this heightened standard of review in considering the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations, the court is persuaded that the result would be no 

different if the order was vacated and plaintiff were permitted additional time to submit his 

objections. The failure of plaintiff to identify his objections to the findings and recommendations 

underscores the appropriateness of this assessment. 

 For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 49), will be denied. As 

a result, plaintiff’s motion to stay this action pending the court’s ruling on this matter (ECF No. 

58), and motion to expedite the court’s ruling (ECF No. 64), will both be denied as moot. 

 The court will, however, grant plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 49 at 4) for additional time 

within which to respond to the court’s February 19, 2014 order. Specifically, plaintiff will be 

granted thirty days from the filing date of this order to file and serve an amended complaint that 

conforms to the requirements set forth in the court’s February 19, 2014 order, as explained more 

fully in the assigned magistrate judge’s January 16, 2014 findings and recommendations. 

 In addition, because the deadlines established by the current Scheduling Order (ECF No. 

56) are now imminent (discovery due by August 1, 2014, dispositive motions due by October 24, 

2014), those deadlines are hereby extended as follows: the deadline for conducting discovery, 

including the deadline for filing motions to compel discovery,3

 is extended to December 5, 2014; 

the deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to March 6, 2015. 

//// 

//// 

///// 

 

3

 The parties are reminded that it is their respective responsibility to request all discovery directly 

from the other parties in the first instance. Discovery requests between the parties are not to be 

filed with the court unless a party remains dissatisfied with a discovery response after attempting 

to resolve the matter informally. See Local Rule 251 (requirement of conferring and making a 

good faith effort to resolve differences). 

Case 2:12-cv-02626-MCE-DAD Document 71 Filed 07/23/14 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

V. Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 49), of this court’s February 19, 2010 

order, is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff may, within thirty days after the filing date of this order, file and serve an 

amended complaint that conforms to the requirements set forth in the undersigned’s February 19, 

2014 order, and the magistrate judge’s January 16, 2014 findings and recommendations. 

 3. The Scheduling Order issued April 11, 2014 (ECF No. 56), is amended as follows: 

 a. The deadline for exchanging discovery, and for filing any motion to compel 

discovery, is extended to December 5, 2014. 

 b. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to March 6, 2015. 

 4. Plaintiff’s request to stay this action (ECF No. 58), and request to expedite the instant 

ruling (ECF No. 64), are denied as moot. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 23, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02626-MCE-DAD Document 71 Filed 07/23/14 Page 6 of 6