Petersen v. Sims

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 19, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00884
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE PETERSEN, No. 1:20-cv-00884-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 ANTHONY SIMS, JR., (Doc. No. 20) 15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff Kyle Petersen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 19 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 Before the court is plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s 22 November 23, 2020 order (Doc. No. 15) adopting the assigned magistrate judge’s September 2, 23 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 10). (Doc. No. 20.) In that order, the court stayed 24 this action pending resolution of plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the judgment of 25 conviction entered in his criminal case. (Doc. No. 15.) In particular, the court found the issues 26 presented to the Ninth Circuit in that appeal were relevant to the claims plaintiff brings in this 27 civil action concerning the search of his cellular phones as part of the investigation of his criminal 28 case. (Id. at 2.) 1 In his second motion for reconsideration, plaintiff contends that the court should 2 | reconsider its order staying the action and reiterates the same arguments previously made in his 3 || first motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 16). (Doc. No. 20 at 3, 5-6.) 4 On May 3, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in plaintiff's appeal from the 5 | judgment of conviction entered in his criminal case. United States v. Peterson, No. 19-10246, 6} _ F.3d___, 2021 WL 1727623 (9th Cir. May 3, 2021). As relevant to the instant action, the 7 | Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings denying plaintiff's motions to suppress evidence 8 | obtained from the seizures and searches of his cellular phones. (d. at *6.) 9 As aresult of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion issued on May 3, 2021, plaintiffs motion for 10 | reconsideration of this court’s order staying the instant action has been rendered moot. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 20) is denied as moot; 13 2. Plaintiff shall file a copy of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion concerning his appeal 14 together with a statement regarding whether he wishes to proceed with this civil 15 action no later than June 3, 2021; and 16 3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _-May 19, 2021 Yole A Lange 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28