Wilson v. Arpaio et al

Filing 239

ORDER that Plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 238 ) is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 237 ) is AFFIRMED. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 12/27/16. (KGM)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Demetrius Antwan Wilson, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-01613-PHX-JAT (DMF) Joseph M Arpaio, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Demetrius Wilson’s December 19, 2016 17 appeal from a pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. (Doc. 238). The Court 18 now rules on the motion. 19 I. Background 20 For the purposes of this appeal, the Court will not recite the underlying facts of the 21 case. Instead, it is sufficient to note that Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in 22 this case on October 26, 2016. (Doc. 230). On October 27, Plaintiff filed a request for 23 leave to amend his summary judgment motion. (Doc. 232). Defendants filed a motion to 24 strike Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, arguing that it was untimely and improper 25 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 233). Magistrate Judge Fine granted 26 Defendant’s motion to strike, finding that Plaintiff’s request violated the local rules of 27 civil procedure because it did not clearly outline the changes Plaintiff sought to make. 28 (Doc. 237). Plaintiff then filed this appeal. 1 II. Analysis 2 When a magistrate judge issues a pretrial order, this Court may review the order 3 “where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 4 law.” Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2012); Barten v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 5 No. CZV-12-0399-TUC-CKJ, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133569, at *10 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 6 2014) (quoting Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 7 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)). The Court will overturn a Magistrate Judge’s decision only 8 if it is the result of “clear error.” Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747 (9th 9 Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Under this standard of review, the Magistrate Judge’s 10 decision is “not subject to de novo determination,” and the Court “may not simply 11 substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San 12 Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). In order to find clear error, the Court must 13 have a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. 14 Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001). 15 Plaintiff has shown no clear error here. For example, Plaintiff’s appeal claims that 16 “[D]efendant(s) never filed such motion to strike.” (Doc. 238 at 1). This is an incorrect 17 statement. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his 18 summary judgment motion on November 14, 2016, and a copy of the motion to strike 19 was mailed to Plaintiff on the same day. (Doc. 233 at 3). 20 The Court also notes that Plaintiff has not shown that he has been prejudiced by 21 the order granting Defendants’ motion to strike. After a brief review of Plaintiff’s motion 22 for summary judgment and his proposed amended motion for summary judgment, this 23 Court does not find that the two documents are significantly different. Moreover, Judge 24 Fine’s order struck only Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend; it did not strike his initial 25 motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff will still be entitled to a decision on that 26 motion in due course.1 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s request for final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(c) is also denied. Rule 54(c) does not empower the Court to enter a final judgment, but rather defines what relief the Court may grant in a final judgment when -2- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal (Doc. 238) is DENIED, and the 3 Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 237) is AFFIRMED. 4 Dated this 27th day of December, 2016. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 one is appropriate. -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?