(PC) Van Huisen v. Clinton Admin.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-01596-DJC-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

19 Newman issued an order granting Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has not filed a motion entitled “Request for Admission, Reconsideration, By Way of Affidavit with Exceptional Circumstances” which has been construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 11, 2023 Magistrate Judge Order.1 (ECF No. 14.)

26 1 Plaintiff has also subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the order dismissing Plaintiff’s first complaint. ( ECF No. 20.) As this notice was filed well after the motion for reconsideration was filed, ( ECF Nos. 14, 20), the Court may still resolve the motion pending before it, despite the notice of appeal. , 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).

1 The content of Plaintiff’s motion is difficult to decipher and written in occasionally difficult-to-read handwriting but appears to reference the August 11, 2023 order. ( ) While there is no clear indication on what grounds Plaintiff moves for reconsideration, Plaintiff does appear to argue the order was improperly issued by a Magistrate Judge as Plaintiff had declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

6 When a party declines Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge may not issue rulings on dispositive matters but is still permitted to rule on non-dispositive matters referred to them. 28 U.S.C. §636(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Here, the matter in question was not dispositive and was properly referred to the Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). As such, the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was proper under statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules.

12 It is unclear what issues the remainder of the order seeks to raise. It contains a number of unrelated statements which seem to have no bearing on this case or this motion. For example, at one point Plaintiff includes the sentence: “Holy scriptures & J.F.K. coercion to support imperialism and secret wall of division.” As best the Court can determine, Plaintiff appears to take issue with the accuracy of some of the quotes from Plaintiff’s first complaint which are contained in the Magistrate Judge’s order.

18 However, this appears to be moot as Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint.

19 ( EFC No. 29.) Even if it were not moot, the Magistrate Judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The handful of alleged misspellings contained in a single block quote do not affect the factual or legal basis for Magistrate Judge’s decision in any way. The block quote was provided in the order to demonstrate that the language contained with the complaint was “largely indecipherable and appear to combine conclusory terms and unrelated phrases and concepts.” (ECF No. 11 at 3.)

25 Even when they are included, the three changes in worded suggested by Plaintiff do not meaningfully change this block quote and the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the complaint is largely indecipherable and contains no clear claims or factual allegations remains correct.

1 In accordance with the above, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for | Reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.

5 IT |S SO ORDERED.

5 | Dated: _ October 4, 2023 Bed | Cobabeatin.

Hon. Daniel labretta 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DJC1 - vanheuisen23cv01596.mtr