Mitchell v. Hernandez et al

Filing 90

ORDER Denying 83 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/13/2011. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

SHAULTON J. MITCHELL,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-01322-AWI-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
(DOC. 83)

12
13

HERNANDEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Shaulton J. Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). On November 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed

17

a motion for extension of time to obtain discovery requests. Doc. 70. On November 19, 2010,

18

Defendants filed an opposition. Doc. 71. Defendants contend that they provided responses to all

19

of Plaintiff’s discovery requests. On January 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge disregarded

20

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time. Doc. 72.

21

On February 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time in order to

22

obtain discovery from Defendants. Docs. 79, 80. On February 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge

23

denied Plaintiff’s motion as moot, as Plaintiff failed to explain what discovery he failed to

24

obtain, citing to the January 14, 2011 Order. Doc. 81. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

25

motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order, filed March 1, 2011. Doc. 83.

26

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), “[t]he district judge in the case must

27

consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous

28

or is contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); L. R. 303. The assigned district judge may
1

1
2

also reconsider any matter sua sponte. L.R. 303(g).
Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a Magistrate

3

Judge’s ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

4

mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d

5

980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943

6

(7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent

7

review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.

8
9

Plaintiff contends in his motion for reconsideration that he attempted to obtain inmate
appeal forms, complains, and information regarding misconduct by the Defendants. The

10

Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s requests as vague and ambiguous as to “any and all complaints

11

and/or information.” Plaintiff is requesting a 30-day extension of time to re-submit his discovery

12

requests to Defendants in order to obtain these documents.

13

Pursuant to the Court’s March 23, 2010 Discovery and Scheduling Order, the discovery

14

cut-off date was November 23, 2010. Doc. 58. By seeking an extension of time, Plaintiff is

15

seeking to modify the scheduling order, which requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16

16(b)(4). Plaintiff is apparently dissatisfied with the discovery responses that he received.

17

However, Defendants did respond to all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff does not

18

provide good cause for modification of the scheduling order. The Court does not find that the

19

Magistrate Judge’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

20

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed

21

March 1, 2011, is DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:
0m8i78

April 13, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2