Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO REOPEN THIS CASE

(Doc. No. 92)

Plaintiff Tremane Darnell Carthen is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 30, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 

54) be granted and that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 

claim under Bivens. (Doc. No. 82.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 

the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one 

(21) days after service. (Id.) On February 15, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending 

findings and recommendations or, in the alternative, additional time to file adequate objections

due to his pending transfer to another facility and his purported lack of access to his legal 

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 93 Filed 07/19/24 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

materials. (Doc. No. 83.) On February 16, 2023, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff thirty 

more days and served this order on the parties. (Doc. No. 84) On April 11, 2023, plaintiff filed a 

motion seeking another extension of time to supplement his objections and requested that a copy 

of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations be mailed to him. (Doc. No. 85.) On 

April 12, 2023, the magistrate judge noted that plaintiff’s motion was not timely filed and that he 

had already received over two additional months to prepare and file his objections, but 

nonetheless granted him one final extension of thirty days and directed the Clerk of Court to mail 

him a copy of the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 86.) The April 12, 2023 order was 

served by mail to plaintiff’s address of record in Illinois, but it was later returned to the court as 

undeliverable. (Id.) Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to file a notice of his change of address 

by July 3, 2023, but he did not do so. (Id.) 

On April 3, 2024, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 89.) On April 4, 

2024, the undersigned adopted the pending findings and recommendations in full and granted the 

defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 90.) The court considered plaintiff’s February 15, 

2023 objections, but ultimately found that plaintiff’s arguments were already thoroughly 

addressed by the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2.) This order was 

served on plaintiff at his address of record in Illinois, but the mail was again returned to the court 

as undeliverable. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a notice of his change of address by June 24, 

2024, but he again did not comply with that order. (Id.) 

On July 8, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this case, stating that “he has not 

received any mail concerning this civil suit while at USP Pollock” in Louisiana. (Doc. No. 92 at 

1.) Plaintiff also inquires as to “what procedural groundings was this case ultimately dismissed 

for because no notice was received by plaintiff.” (Id.) 

The court has considered plaintiff’s request but concludes that plaintiff has not presented 

any basis upon which the court should grant his motion to reopen this case. This case was 

dismissed not on procedural grounds, but due to the substantive analysis of the magistrate judge, 

as outlined in the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 82.) Plaintiff filed objections to 

those findings and recommendations, and after a period of over a year in which plaintiff did not 

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 93 Filed 07/19/24 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

file additional objections despite his requests for additional time to do so, the court carefully 

considered his objections but ultimately concluded that they did not provide any basis for 

rejecting the magistrate judge’s thorough analysis. 

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case (Doc. No. 92) is denied; and

2. In an abundance of caution, the court directs the Clerk of the Court to send 

plaintiff a copy of the court’s order dated April 4, 2024 (Doc. No. 90) and to serve 

this order by mail on: Tremane Darnell Carthen; Reg. No. 16353-002; USP Big 

Sandy; U.S. Penitentiary; P.O. Box 2068; Inez, KY 41224.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 The Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator shows that plaintiff is located at Big Sandy USP, 

and not his address of record in Illinois.

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 93 Filed 07/19/24 Page 3 of 3