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)

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-