IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 13, 2009
ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, PLAINTIFF,
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE MOTIONS
(Doc. 21, 23, 24)
Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney Knapp ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are three of Defendant's motions. Plaintiff filed a "Renewed Application by Plaintiff for Leave & Sufficient Time to File Amended Complaint After Adjudication by District Judge(s) of Pending Request for Reconsideration Per Local Rule 72-303(c)" filed on June 10, 2009. (Doc. #21.) Plaintiff filed a "Request by Plaintiff for Previously Requested but Misapprehended Local Rule 72-303(c) Reconsideration by the Court's District Judge(s) of the Magistrate Judges' Rulings" on June 30, 2009. (Doc. #23.) Finally, Plaintiff filed a "Notification By Plaintiff of New Address: Application for Second Enlargement of Time to File Amended Complaint" on July 15, 2009. (Doc. #24.)
Plaintiff's June 10, 2009 and July 15, 2009 motions request and extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due June 8, 2009 per the Court's May 5, 2009 order granting Plaintiff's first motion for extension of time. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on July 30, 2009. (Doc. #25.) The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion for extension of time and this action thus proceeds on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on July 30, 2009.
Plaintiff's June 30, 2009 motion requests reconsideration of the Court's April 13, 2009 screening order by a District Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-303(c). Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 72-303(c) provides for reconsideration by a District Judge of rulings that have been referred to a Magistrate Judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302. See Local Rule 72-302(a) ("a Magistrate Judge shall hear, conduct such evidentiary hearings as are appropriate, and determine all general pretrial matters referred in accordance with L.R. 72-302."). In contrast, Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 73-305 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). There is no District Judge assigned to this case. Plaintiff has cited no authority that suggests the availability of District Judge review of proceedings conducted by a Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 73-305.*fn1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions for extension of time, filed on June 10, 2009 and July 15, 2009, are GRANTED and this action will proceed on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on July 30, 2009; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration by a District Judge is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.