(PC) Garcia v. Baniga ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GARCIA, 1:19-cv-01258-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 vs. REGARDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 U. BANIGA, et al., (ECF No. 10.) 15 Defendants. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Jose Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 19 this action on September 10, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 20 On September 27, 2019, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending 21 that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied. (ECF No. 10.) On October 18, 2019, 22 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 14.) In the objections 23 Plaintiff argues that the court mistook his statement in the Complaint that he was seeking 24 injunctive relief for a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff asserts that he did not 25 file a motion, and a ruling on his intention to seek injunctive relief is premature. 26 Plaintiff also contends that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(A), the Magistrate Judge has no 27 authority to decide issues of injunctive relief. Plaintiff accuses the Magistrate Judge of 28 1 conducting litigation on behalf of the defendants, since “the judgment forecloses Plaintiff’s 2 injunction motion and creates a defense for the Defendants” by ruling that the injunction be 3 denied to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 14 at 1.) 4 II. AUTHORITY OF MAGISTRATE JUDGES 5 A. Legal Standards 6 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 governs the jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment 7 authority of Magistrate Judges. The statute provides at § 636(b)(1): 8 (A) a [district] judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and 9 determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion 10 for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary 11 judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by 12 the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to 13 permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a 14 claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an 15 action...; 16 (B) a [district] judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct 17 hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of 18 the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the 19 disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in 20 subparagraph (A)...; 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A-B). 22 Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, regarding findings and recommendations 23 on dispositive motions, states that “[a] magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required 24 proceedings when assigned, without the parties’ consent, to hear a pretrial matter dispositive of 25 a claim or defense . . . ,” and that “[t]he magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition, 26 including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Rule 72(b)(1). Furthermore, Local Rule 27 302 for the Eastern District of California states, in part, “It is the intent of this Rule that Magistrate 28 1 Judges perform all duties permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), (b)(1)(A), . . . [and] Magistrate Judges 2 will perform the duties described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).” L.R. 302(a). 3 B. Analysis 4 Plaintiff is correct that 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(A) does not provide authority for magistrate 5 judges to resolve dispositive motions, including motions for injunctive relief. 28 U.S.C. § 6 636(B)(1)(A). See Leskinen v. Perdue, No. 218CV453TLNKJNPS, 2019 WL 2567142, at *2–3 7 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 218CV00453TLNKJN, 2019 8 WL 4011076 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019). However, in so arguing, Plaintiff conveniently omits 9 reference to section B, which provides explicit authority for a magistrate judge to conduct 10 proceedings for injunctive relief and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations to a 11 district judge. Id. (citing see § 636(b)(1)(B); see also United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 12 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (reminding that “certain matters (for example, non- 13 dispositive pretrial matters) may be referred to a magistrate judge for decision, while certain other 14 matters (such as case-dispositive motions [and] petitions for writs of habeas corpus) may be 15 referred only for evidentiary hearing, proposed findings, and recommendations.”) (emphasis 16 added)). Local Rule 302(a) derives from § 636, and the Ninth Circuit has upheld this allocation 17 of judicial resources in numerous instances. See Leskinen, 2019 WL 2567142, at *3 (citing see 18 Houghton v. Osborne, 834 F.2d 745, 748 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)] authorizes 19 a magistrate to submit to the district court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the 20 disposition of . . . a motion for summary judgment.”); see also Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 21 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that “a magistrate judge should provide a report and 22 recommendation to the district court [on a remand motion] that is subject to de novo review....”)). 23 Thus, in submitting the proposed findings and recommendations to Judge Ishii, the 24 undersigned acted within his authority. Houghton, 834 F.2d at 748. 25 III. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION 26 In light of Plaintiff’s request in the Complaint that this case be treated as an “emergency 27 action,” the court construed Plaintiff’s statement in the Complaint requesting “speedy medical 28 care” as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and therefore addressed it as a request for 1 immediate medical care. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 7.) Plaintiff also alleges in the Complaint that his “life 2 is in imminent danger, and he suffers in extreme pain.” (ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶ 4.) Nonetheless, 3 Plaintiff claims that he is not requesting immediate medical care and seeks to preserve his right 4 to request injunctive relief in the Complaint. 5 Plaintiff is advised that the findings and recommendations of September 27, 2019, 6 address only preliminary injunctive relief, and importantly, not Plaintiff’s right to request 7 injunctive relief in the Complaint. However, given that Plaintiff has vehemently denied any 8 intent to request preliminary injunctive relief, the court shall withdraw its findings and 9 recommendations. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 12 findings and recommendations entered on September 27, 2019, are WITHDRAWN. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: October 23, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28