Jesse Junior Chacon v. Connie Gipson

Filing 61

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion to Review Denial of Moiton to Reconsider Order Denying Discovery 59 . Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-08366-CAS-DTB

Title

JESSE JUNIOR CHACON V. SUZANNE M. PEERY

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 7, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - PETITIONER JESSE JUNIOR CHACON’S
MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF MOTION TO
RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY (Dkt. 59, filed
June 8, 2016)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of July 11,
2016, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On May 21, 2010, a jury in the Los Angeles County Superior Court found
petitioner Jesse Junior Chacon guilty of kidnapping in order to commit robbery;
carjacking; second degree robbery; and kidnapping during a carjacking. See Dkt. 12-2.
On November 12, 2013, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. On November 25, 2014,
Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow submitted to the undersigned a report and
recommendation dismissing the petition on the grounds that the petition was
unexhausted. Dkt. 21; see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982). On January 27,
2015, this Court accepted Judge Bristow’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations,
and accordingly dismissed the petition. Dkt. 22.
On March 8, 2016, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
cases, petitioner filed a Motion for Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Discovering
Evidence Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Dkt. 53. In his motion,
petitioner argued that he believes there are certain records that, if provided and
considered, may exonerate him. Dkt. 53-3. On March 18, 2016, respondent Connie
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-08366-CAS-DTB

July 7, 2016

Title

JESSE JUNIOR CHACON V. SUZANNE M. PEERY

Gipson, as Warden, filed an opposition to petitioner’s motion. Dkt. 55. On March 28,
2016, Magistrate Judge Bristow denied petitioner’s motion on the grounds that, among
other things, the motion was premature. Dkt. 56, at 1-2.
On April 25, 2016, petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider the Order Denying
Discovery. Dkt. 57. On May 25, 2016, in a six-page order, Magistrate Judge Bristow
denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that the motion for reconsideration largely
reargued the substance of the already-denied motion for discovery, and therefore had not
properly set forth a basis for Rule 60(b) relief. See Dkt. 58.
On June 8, 2016, ostensibly pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
Local Rule 72-2.1, petitioner filed the instant Motion for Review of Denial of Motion to
Reconsider Order Denying Discovery.1 Dkt. 59. Respondent has not filed an opposition
to the instant motion.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a federal district court reviews
non-dispositive orders by magistrate judges to determine whether they are “clearly
erroneous or . . . contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 12 Fed. Prac. & Proc.
Civ. § 3069 (2d ed.) (explaining that “it is extremely difficult to justify alteration of the
magistrate judge’s nondispositive actions by the district judge”); Weeks v. Samsung
Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The clear error standard
means that the district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district
court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”). The
magistrate judge’s decisions with respect to such orders are “entitled to great deference
by the district court.” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.
2001).

1

The instant motion is ostensibly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and Central District Local Civil Rule 72-2.1. Rule 59(e) permits a party
to file a “motion to alter or amend a judgment.” However, a federal district court reviews
non-dispositive orders by magistrate judges––such as Magistrate Judge Bristow’s order
on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration––under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court
therefore construes the instant motion as asserted under Rule 72(a).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-08366-CAS-DTB

Title

JESSE JUNIOR CHACON V. SUZANNE M. PEERY

III.

Date

‘O’

July 7, 2016

DISCUSSION

As summarized in the order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration,
Magistrate Judge Bristow denied petitioner’s initial motion for discovery on the grounds
that “a habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course, and
that discovery is generally not appropriate in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.” Dkt.
58, at 6. Magistrate Judge Bristow rightly noted that “[w]hile petitioner disputes [Judge
Bristow’s] conclusion, he has failed to set forth any basis to alter the discretionary
conclusion . . . that he is not entitled to discovery.” Id. Specifically,
Here, petitioner has not set forth a basis for Rule 60(b) relief on
the grounds of newly discovered evidence, or misconduct by
the prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). Nor has
petitioner identified any reason to declare the Order void or any
intervening circumstances that render the Order no longer
equitable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4),(5). Finally, petitioner has
failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances which might
warrant relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)6.
Id.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Bristow denied petitioner’s motion to reconsider
principally on the grounds that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion may only be granted under
“extraordinary circumstances” and petitioner here failed to set forth a basis for relief,
pursuant to Central District Local Civil Rule 7-18, based upon, e.g., newly discovered
evidence or misconduct by the prosecution. Id.
The Court finds no reason to disturb Magistrate Judge Bristow’s ruling on
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Under Local Rule 7-18, “[n]o motion for
reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support
of or in opposition to the original motion.” Petitioner’s denied-motion for
reconsideration largely reargued the substance of petitioner’s original motion for
discovery, and therefore did not provide a basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) or
Local Rule 7-18. In short, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Bristow’s conclusion
that there was no basis for reconsideration of his order denying discovery; accordingly,
the ruling was not “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-08366-CAS-DTB

Title

JESSE JUNIOR CHACON V. SUZANNE M. PEERY

IV.

Date

‘O’

July 7, 2016

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES petitioner’s motion to
review.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 4 of 4