Simmons v. Hedgpeth

Filing 135

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 132 Motion for Reconsideration and 133 Motion for Stay of Proceedings, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/8/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GRISSOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
[ECF Nos. 132, 133]

Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

20

September 28, 2015, order denying Plaintiff’s request to stay the proceedings. (ECF No. 132.) On

21

this same date, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of his motion for

22

reconsideration. (ECF No. 133.)

23

I.

24

LEGAL STANDARD

25

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

26

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.

27

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature

28

to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.
1

See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

1

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds,

2

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

3

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly

4

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

5

As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge’s order that are either

6

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and County of San

7

Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive pretrial matters

8

that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

9

A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left with

10

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v. International

11

Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 489 (C.D. Cal.

12

2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe and Products of

13

California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623,

14

113 S.Ct. 2264 (1993).

15

The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal

16

determinations by the magistrate judge. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd

17

Cir.1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir.

18

2002). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or

19

rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn.

20

2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Surles v. Air

21

France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see also Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F.Supp.

22

202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983).

23

II.

24

DISCUSSION

25

On September 28, 2015, the assigned Magistrate Judge granted Defendants’ motion to compel,

26

denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings, and extended the discovery and dispositive motion

27

deadlines. (ECF No. 131.)

28
2

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his request to stay

1
2

the proceedings due to his mental condition. In denying Plaintiff’s motion, the Magistrate Judge

3

found that Plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence which placed his competency to prosecute this

4

action in question and there was an insufficient basis to stay the proceedings. (ECF No. 131, Order at

5

6.) In reaching this conclusion the Magistrate Judge reasoned as follows:
Plaintiff seeks an indefinite stay of the proceedings “pending resolution of Plaintiff’s
medical condition.” (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff contends he “is currently suffering from
PTSD, affecting his [cognitive] functions, including, but not limited to, abstraction,
concentration, attention, intellectual faculties, memory and ability to process
information sufficiently to prepare meaningful moving and opposing papers, prepare
for trial, discovery and respond to requests by defendants.” (Id. at 2.)

6
7
8
9
10

Discovery in this action opened in July 2014, and the parties were given eight months
to conduct pretrial discovery. (ECF No. 90.) In January 2015, Plaintiff was transferred
from the California Medical Facility to Atascadero State Hospital for psychiatric
treatment. (ECF Nos. 105, 107.) Plaintiff was retained at Atascadero for 49 days, from
December 5, 2014, to January 23, 2015. (ECF No. 113, at 2 and n.1.) During this time,
Plaintiff was without his legal materials. (Id. at 2.) As a result, the Court modified the
scheduling order by extending the discovery deadline and the dispositive motion
deadline, each by 60 days. (ECF No. 115.)

11
12
13
14
15

Then, approximately two months later, Plaintiff was transferred from the California
Medical Facility to Atascadero a second time. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff was again
separated from his legal materials for just over 90 days. The Court modified the
scheduling order by extending the discovery deadline for an additional 60 days, and the
dispositive motion deadline for an extra 50 days. (ECF No. 123.)

16
17
18

Defendants do not oppose a short modification of the scheduling order to complete
discovery and to allow the parties to file dispositive motions. Defendants propose a 30day extension of the discovery deadline, with a corresponding 30-day extension of the
dispositive motion deadline.

19
20
21

As previously stated, in support of his motion to stay, Plaintiff submits a memorandum,
dated July 14, 2015, which notes that Plaintiff is diagnosed with Major Depressive
Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, without Psychotic Features for which he is being treated.
(ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff also submits medical progress notes, dated February 27, 2015,
and March 5, 2015, which are not relevant to the time frame at issue. Plaintiff has
failed to produce evidence that calls his competency into question, and he has not
demonstrated that the proceedings should be stayed.

22
23
24
25
26
27

(ECF No. 131, Order at 5:17-28-6:1-14.)

28

///
3

1

“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s

2

decision, and recapitulation. . .” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its

3

decision.

4

quotation marks and citation omitted). As such, motions for reconsideration are not available to

5

dissatisfied litigants as a vehicle by which to require the same judge or a different judge to rethink a

6

decision, and a Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s does not provide a basis for

7

reconsideration. Id.

U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal

8

The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that under the circumstances presented, Plaintiff

9

was not entitled to a stay of the proceedings and properly extended the discovery and dispositive

10

motions deadline in light of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his mental condition. Pursuant to Local

11

Rule 230(l), the Magistrate Judge ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to stay without waiting for a reply by

12

Plaintiff finding implicitly that a reply was unnecessary. Plaintiff now submits a mental health

13

evaluation dated June 12, 2015, interdisciplinary progress notes dated July 17, 2015, July 22, 2015,

14

August 5, 2015, September 15, 2015, and October 1, 2015. (ECF No. 132, Ex. C.) All of Plaintiff’s

15

medical evaluations were routine contacts, and Plaintiff’s medical documentation demonstrates only

16

that he is suffering from depression for which he is being evaluated and properly treated. There is not

17

a sufficient showing that Plaintiff is suffering from a severe mental condition which significantly

18

interferes with his ability to prosecute this action. The Magistrate Judge extended the discovery and

19

dispositive motions deadlines accordingly given Plaintiff’s transfer from CDCR to ASU.

20

extent, Plaintiff may need additional time to comply with a court order or other filing in this action, he

21

may seek relief by way of a motion to extend the time. Accordingly, although Plaintiff has presented

22

additional medical documentation, such documentation does not demonstrate that the Magistrate

23

Judge’s September 28, 2015, order was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” and Plaintiff’s motion

24

for reconsideration is DENIED. In light of this ruling, Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceeding

25

pending resolution of the instant motion is DENIED as moot.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 8, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

To the