Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DERRICK L. WILLIAMS, Case No.: 1:26-cv-02648-JLT-EGC (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S

NOTICE AS MOTION TO VACATE THE

13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AND DENYING THE MOTION

14 KENNY JOHNSON, et al.,

(Doc. 11)

15 Defendants.

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE WITHIN

16 WHICH TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

17 ISSUED MAY 6, 2026

18 Deadline to File Objections: June 5, 2026

19

Plaintiff Derrick L. Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

20

U.S.C. § 1983.

21

I. BACKGROUND

22

On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed his complaint (Doc. 1) and an application to proceed in

23

forma pauperis (IFP) (Doc. 2). That same date, the Court issued its new case documents,

24

including the First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case and a

25

Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form. (See Doc. 3.)

26

On April 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion Request for Extension of

27

Time According to Fed. R. Civil. Pro. R. (6) (B).” (Doc. 7.)

1

2 On May 4, 2026, the Court issued its Order of Reassignment, reassigning this action to the

3 undersigned following formerly assigned Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto’s retirement. (Doc.

4 8.)

5 On May 6, 2026, the undersigned issued her Findings and Recommendations to Deny

6 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 10.) More specifically, the Court determined

7 that Plaintiff has incurred at least three prior strikes and did not meet the imminent danger

8 exception pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); therefore, it was recommended Plaintiff’s IFP

9 application be denied and that he be ordered to pay the full filing fee for this action. (Id. at 2-5.)

10 Plaintiff was advised that any objections were to be filed within 14 days. (Id. at 5.)

11 On May 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Receipt of Order of Re-assignment of

12 Magistrate Judge, by Chief U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley Enclosed Petition/Motion Decline

13 of Jurisdiction of A United States Magistrate Judge (Erin Guy Castillo) re-assigned to this Civil

14 Action above. Due to The Petitioner Right to Decline U.S. Magistrate Jurisdiction over pending

15 Case. And To Have The Re-Assigned Magistrate finding and recommendation ‘Stricken Out’ of

16 Court Records and Transcripts in the said above Civil Action.” (Doc. 11.) The filing was

17 docketed as a “Notice re Spelling of Name and Reassignment by Derrick L. Williams” by the

18 Clerk of the Court.

19 On May 20, 2026, the Court issued its Order Granting Extension of Time Within Which to

20 File Consent/Decline Form. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff was ordered to file the form within 30 days of the

21 date of service of the order. (Id. at 2.)

22 II. DISCUSSION

23 The Court construes Plaintiff’s May 19 filing as a motion to vacate the Findings and

24 Recommendations issued May 6, 2026, and addresses the additional arguments asserted by

25 Plaintiff therein.

26 First, the Court addresses magistrate judge jurisdiction. The Federal Magistrates Act, 28

27 U.S.C. §§ 631-39, governs the jurisdiction and authority of federal magistrates. See 28 U.S.C. §

1 referred to a magistrate judge for decision, while certain other matters (such as case-dispositive

2 motions, petitions for writs of habeas corpus) may be referred only for evidentiary hearing,

3 proposed findings, and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B). The Act also states that

4 a magistrate judge may be “assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the

5 Constitution and laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). “Congress intended

6 magistrates to play an integral and important role in the federal judicial system.” Peretz v. United

7 States, 501 U.S. 923, 928 (1991).

8 Here, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s IFP

9 application because he has filed five prior lawsuits that were dismissed for a failure to state a

10 claim or as frivolous, amounting to strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and because he

11 failed to meet the imminent danger exception. (Doc. 10.) As stated in the conclusion, the Findings

12 and Recommendations were “submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case,

13 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),” meaning District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston

14 will consider the Findings and Recommendations de novo, including any objections submitted,

15 before issuing an order either adopting or declining to adopt those findings. See Coleman v.

16 Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282, 1297 (E.D. Cal. 1995) (“The Court is not bound to adopt the

17 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations; on the contrary, the court must exercise sound

18 judicial discretion’ in making its own determination on the record. The Court may accept, reject,

19 or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations” [citations

20 omitted]); Webb v. Califano, 468 F.Supp 825, 828 (E.D. Cal. 1979) (a district court is under a

21 mandatory obligation to make a de novo review of a magistrate’s proposed findings and

22 recommendations when timely objection is made thereto; even when no objections at all are

23 filed).

24 To the extent Plaintiff argues his intent to decline magistrate judge jurisdiction means the

25 undersigned will no longer be assigned to this action or that because of a declination the Findings

26 and Recommendations issued on May 6 are improper, he is mistaken. When a party declines

27 magistrate judge jurisdiction, that “decision entitles him to have all dispositive matters in the case

1 non-dispositive matters handled by the district judge.” Kokolios v. Diaz, No. 2:20-cv-0933-KJM-

2 EFB P, 20202 WL 3640244, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) (citation omitted); see also Bolin v.

3 Brown, No. 1:12-cv-00077-LJO-GSA-PC, 2012 WL 639464, at * 1-2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012)

4 (denying reconsideration and holding, “To the extent that the basis for Plaintiff’s objection is his

5 decision to decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, Plaintiff misunderstands the effect of

6 consenting to or declining Magistrate Judge jurisdiction”). Stated another way, even presuming

7 Plaintiff files a declination of magistrate judge jurisdiction in this action, the undersigned may

8 properly issue findings and recommendations on dispositive matters (including the denial of IFP

9 status) and may issue orders on non-dispositive pretrial matters (e.g., orders concerning screening

10 a complaint, discovery motions, motions seeking the appointment of counsel). See 28 U.S.C. §

11 636; E.D. Local Rules 302, 304.

12 Next, to the extent Plaintiff argues that the Court’s capitalization of his name in the

13 caption for this action is improper and requires correction (see Doc. 11 at 1), he is mistaken. See,

14 e.g., Asarkasaamsu v. United States, No. 2016-0027, 2024 WL 6848044, at *1 (D.V.I. Nov. 14,

15 2024) (“because the Court traditionally places the parties’ names in all caps in the caption, the

16 Court will do the same here and not deviate from its normal practice without a compelling reason

17 to do so. Plaintiffs have provided no such reason”); Bachmeier v. Einerson, No. 3:23-cv-00179-

18 SLG, 2023 WL 6796213, at *1 (D. Alaska Oct. 13, 2023) (denying motion to strike and request

19 reassignment, stating “Mr. Bachmeier’s disagreement with how his name is spelled in court

20 orders does not present proper grounds for the recusal of the assigned judge. Mr. Bachmeier fails

21 to allege any facts that establish the undersigned has exhibited bias or prejudice that arose from

22 an extrajudicial source. Rather, the Court’s use of all capitals for the names of each party in the

23 case caption is consistent with this Court’s local rules and is used in every case”); Defluiter v.

24 Land, No. 1:10-cv-421, 2010 WL 2539721, at *2 (W.D. Mich. June 15, 2010) (overruling

25 plaintiff’s objection to the use of capitalization of his name in the caption of the report and

26 recommendation, stating the argument is “meritless and frivolous”); Adams v. City of Marshall,

27 No. 4:05-CV-62, 2005 WL 2739029 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2005) (observing that “[t]he use of all

1 significance” [internal quotations omitted]); United States v. Wight, No. CIV S-98-

2 0442FCDDAD, 2002 WL 254016, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2002) (“the Wights contend that the

3 spelling of their names in all capital letters in the caption of this case (i.e. LEE D. WIGHT,

4 MARJORIE A. WIGHT) is an improper use of a ‘trade name’ for the purpose of fraudulently

5 acquiring personal jurisdiction. They also contest the use of a zip code to identify their place of

6 residence, arguing that they live in the ‘California Republic,’ not in any ‘federal area.’ The court

7 rejects the Wights’ frivolous contentions”).

8 To the extent Plaintiff contends the Court has not offered him an “opportunity to request

9 the court assign him a lawyer” (see Doc. 11 at 2), Plaintiff is advised he may file a motion

10 seeking the appointment of counsel on his own initiative and at any time. Plaintiff is further

11 advised that plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 actions.

12 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d

13 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). Nor can the Court require an attorney to represent a party under 28

14 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in

15 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant

16 to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

17 Next, to the extent Plaintiff states he has “started working on amending and

18 supplementing his Civil Action” (see Doc. 11 at 2), Plaintiff is advised that an amended

19 complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th

20 Cir. 2012). Therefore, any amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to

21 the prior or superseded pleading.” E.D. Local Rule 220. Stated another way, Plaintiff may file an

22 amended complaint in this action, however, he may not file a “supplement” to his original

23 complaint because any supplement would reference a “prior or superseded” complaint. Plaintiff is

24 further advised that Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides information

25 concerning amending a complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint,

26 like his original complaint, is subject to screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

27 Lastly, to the extent Plaintiff sought to have Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley address his

1 | United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley in hope and pray he does the right thing ...”]), the

2 | Chief Judge’s consideration is not required. This Court’s Local Rule 122 states, in relevant part:

3 | “The Judge assigned to an action, or the Magistrate Judge when authorized, preside over the trial

4 | and determine all motions or other matters in that action, except as otherwise provided ....”

5 | Further, Appendix A to the Local Rules states, in pertinent part, that “[n]o action, once assigned,

6 | shall be reassigned to any other Judge except as hereinafter provided ... (4) With the approval of

7 | the Court en banc, the Chief Judge may take such other assignments, reassignments or related

8 | orders as are conductive to the equitable division and just, efficient and economical determination

9 | of the business of the Court.” In this case, Chief Judge Nunley’s Order of Reassignment was

10 | administrative in nature, reassigning the undersigned to this action following Magistrate Judge

11 |} Oberto’s retirement. Therefore, the undersigned and District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston remain

12 | assigned to this action.

13 Finally, because the Court will deny Plaintiff's construed motion to vacate the Findings

14 | and Recommendations, it will extend the deadline for filing objections to allow Plaintiff an

15 | opportunity to address the substance of those findings should he choose to do so.

16 Il. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

17 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

18 1. Plaintiffs “Notice” filed May 19, 2026 (Doc. 11), construed by the Court to be a

19 motion to vacate the findings and recommendations, is DENIED; and

20 2. The deadline for filing objections to the Findings and Recommendations issued May

21 6, 2026, is EXTENDED. Plaintiff may file any objections no later than June 5,

22 2026.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED. .

25 | Dated: _ May 21, 2026 C uit Qu | Cay (lo

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27

28