United States District Court, E.D. California
AHMAD J. ALJINDI, Plaintiff,
NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Ahmad J. Aljindi, who proceeds in this action without
counsel, filed his first amended complaint on November 9,
2017. (ECF No. 18.) Simultaneously, plaintiff filed a motion
to disqualify the magistrate judge (ECF No. 13), a motion to
appoint counsel (ECF No. 14), and a motion to utilize the
electronic filing system (ECF No. 16).
first amended complaint, plaintiff, a Middle Eastern Muslim
whose nation of origin is Syria, alleges that he was
discriminated and retaliated against by defendant
Northcentral University, based on his race, religion, and
national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended. (See generally ECF
No. 18.) Plaintiff also alleges that defendant bribed
officials at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in
an effort to stymie plaintiff's complaints against
defendant with the Commission. (Id.)
on the limited record before the court, the court cannot
conclude that plaintiff's action is frivolous, that the
first amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or that plaintiff seeks monetary
relief from an immune defendant. The court reserves decision
as to plaintiff's claims until the record is sufficiently
developed, and this order does not preclude defendant from
challenging plaintiff's first amended complaint through a
timely motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12
or other appropriate method of challenging plaintiff's
pleading. Accordingly, the court orders service of the first
amended complaint on defendant.
to filing the first amended complaint and these three motions
on November 9, 2017, plaintiff previously filed motions to
appoint counsel (ECF No. 7), and to utilize the electronic
filing system (ECF No. 3), both of which were denied. (ECF
Nos. 4, 11.) The court construes plaintiff's duplicative
November 9, 2017 motions to appoint counsel and to utilize
the electronic filing system, as motions for reconsideration.
However, there have been no changes in fact or law to justify
appointing counsel or granting plaintiff permission to use
the electronic filing system. As such, plaintiff's
November 9, 2017 motions to appoint counsel (ECF No. 14) and
to utilize the electronic filing system (ECF No 16) are
denied for the same reasons set forth in the court's
previous orders. (See ECF Nos. 4, 11.)
plaintiff's motion to disqualify the magistrate judge,
there is no evidence to support plaintiff's conclusory
assertion that the undersigned “has shown acute
prejudice against the Plaintiff and blatant partiality for
the Defendant.” (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Aside from reaching
conclusions with which plaintiff disagrees, plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate how the undersigned has shown prejudice
against him. While plaintiff is not pleased with the
court's prior orders, they have been based upon sound
application of the appropriate legal standards. (See
ECF Nos. 4, 11.)
this case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to federal
statute and the local rules of the Eastern District of
California. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) grants district judges
the authority to designate magistrate judges to hear a wide
variety of matters. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), the local rules of this court provide that
“[i]n Sacramento, all [civil] actions in which all the
plaintiffs or defendants are proceeding in propria
persona, including dispositive and non-dispositive
motions and matters” shall be assigned to a magistrate
judge. E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).
only plaintiff in this matter is proceeding without an
attorney, in propria persona. Thus, the rules of
this court determine that all motions in this matter will be
considered initially by a magistrate judge. See E.D.
Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). At the same time, since plaintiff has
declined to proceed before a magistrate judge (ECF No. 12),
United States District Judge John A. Mendez retains
jurisdiction over this case. As a result, Judge Mendez will
decide any dispositive motion, after a magistrate judge makes
non-binding findings and recommendations. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
there is no legal basis for plaintiff's motion to
disqualify the undersigned magistrate judge from this matter.
Additionally, because plaintiff's current motions are not
dispositive, the undersigned may decide these issues by
plaintiff is advised that any motion he files with the court
must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). The
court will summarily dismiss any future motion that is
duplicative to a motion the court has already considered and
denied, unless the new motion is based upon changed factual
or legal circumstances that justify reconsideration.
Furthermore, the court may order monetary sanctions against
any party who files a frivolous or duplicative motion.
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's motions to disqualify the magistrate judge
(ECF No. 13), to appoint counsel (ECF No. 14), and for
permission to utilize the electronic filing system (ECF No.
16) are DENIED.
Service of the first amended complaint (ECF No. 18) is
appropriate for defendant Northcentral University.
Clerk of Court is directed to issue forthwith all process
pursuant to ...