United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC.NO.
October 26, 2016, plaintiff Francisco Mendoza filed this
action against defendants Golden Valley Health Center
(“GVHC”), et al. alleging violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e et seq., and relevant state law.
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
December 20, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge screened
plaintiff's complaint and issued an order dismissing it
for failure to state a claim and granted plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff was
provided with thirty days in which to file an amended
complaint. Rather than file an amended complaint, on January
20, 2017, plaintiff filed objections to the screening order.
(Doc. No. 3.) The undersigned construes plaintiff's
objections as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate
judge's order dismissing his complaint with leave to
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive
pretrial matters may be referred to and decided by a
magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district
judge. See also Local Rule 303(c). The district
judge shall modify or set aside any part of the magistrate
judge's order which is “found to be clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f).
See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Because the
magistrate judge's prior order granted plaintiff leave to
amend and did not finally dispose of any claims or arguments,
the screening order was non-dispositive. See McKeever v.
Block, 9323 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (“As to
non-dispositive matters, Article III appears to create no bar
to a greater role for magistrates. Therefore, a magistrate
can, for example, dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without approval by the court.”); Arnold v. United
States Forest Serv., No. 3:14-cv-00421-MMD-WGC, 2016 WL
3395461, at *2 (D. Nev. June 13, 2016) (“Dismissal with
leave to amend is non-dispositive and therefore within the
authority granted by  U.S.C. § 636.”);
Reid v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS
(PC), 2015 WL 2235127, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2015).
motion to reconsider a magistrate judge's non-dispositive
order, the magistrate judge's factual determinations are
reviewed for clear error, and the magistrate judge's
legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are
contrary to law. Local Rule 303(f); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); United
States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir.
1984), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Merchant
v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A
magistrate judge's decision is ‘contrary to
law' if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to
consider an element of applicable standard, or fails to apply
or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of
procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No.
1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July
18, 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
objections to the order dismissing his original complaint
with leave to amend indicates he disagrees with the
magistrate judge's conclusion that he has failed to state
a cognizable claim, but also suggest he is able to plead
further facts to support his claim. (See Doc. No. 3
at 1 (“I have spoken with numerous individuals who have
not come forward.”); id. at 2 (“There
are numerous documents, emails and evidence I had submitted
in my EEOC file that prove and support that I was subjected
to a hostile work environment.”)) Plaintiffs mere
disagreement with the magistrate judge's order does not
demonstrate that the order was clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Further, plaintiffs representation that he can plead
additional facts suggests allowing leave to amend is an
appropriate course at this juncture. Any additional factual
details plaintiff can plead may be included in an amended
complaint, as noted by the magistrate judge in his order.
(See Doc. No. 2.) Similarly, to the extent plaintiff
represents he is seeking relief in addition to simply the
removal of a state-court ordered restraining order, he is
encouraged to state the relief he seeks-whether in the form
of damages, an injunction, or declaratory relief-in his
amended complaint. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff is again
reminded an amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927
(9th Cir. 2012); Valdez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d
851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011), and must be “complete in
itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,
” Local Rule 220.
the foregoing, plaintiffs objections (Doc. No. 3), construed
as a request to reconsider the magistrate judge's order
dismissing his original complaint with leave to amend, is
denied. Plaintiff is directed to file any amended complaint
he wishes to present within thirty (30) days of this order.
Plaintiff is warned that failure to do so may result in the
dismissal of this action. This matter is referred back to the
assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent
with this order, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and all
applicable local rules.
 Plaintiff suggests he has been seeking
records from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he
believes may in some way support his claim. (Doc. No. 3 at
1-2.) If plaintiff contends that he needs additional time to
file an amended complaint, he may submit a request an
extension of time, ...