(PC) Johnson v. Dovey et al

Filing 184

ORDER DENYING CDCR'S 182 Motion for Reconsideration as MOOT signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/27/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GARRISON S. JOHNSON, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00640-LJO-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING CDCR’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT v. (ECF No. 182) 12 13 14 JOHN DOVEY, et al., Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 17 and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 18 against Defendants Dunnahoe, V. Ybarra, Cunningham, Medrano, Holguin, Valasquez, 19 G.Ybarra, Curliss, J. Gonzales, and K. Powell on claims of excessive force, inhumane conditions 20 of confinement, retaliation, and state law claims. On June 14, 2012, the United States Magistrate 21 Judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that 22 Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order access to the law library be denied. ECF No. 174. The 23 Magistrate Judge also issued an order that Plaintiff be granted leave to submit a request for a 24 subpoena duces tecum. On June 25, 2012, CDCR, a non-party to this action, filed a document 25 purporting to be objections to the Findings and Recommendations. ECF No. 176. However, 26 CDCR objected only to the Magistrate Judge’s order, not to the Findings and Recommendations. 27 On August 21, 2012, the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations and denied 28 Plaintiff’s motion requesting a court order for access to the law library. ECF No. 180. Pending 1 1 2 before the Court is CDCR’s motion for reconsideration, filed August 24, 2012. ECF No. 182. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders of the district court. 3 The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: 4 “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party, 5 . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for 6 reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time. Id. 7 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 8 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 9 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 10 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 11 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 12 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in 13 original). 14 CDCR has not presented grounds for reconsideration. The time period for objections 15 provided in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations pertained to Plaintiff’s 16 motion for a court order requesting access to the law library. The objections raised by CDCR 17 pertain only to the Magistrate Judge’s order regarding issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. A 18 United States Magistrate Judge’s duties includes all discovery matters in this Court. See L.R. 19 302(c)(1). CDCR’s objections were irrelevant to the adjudication of the Findings and 20 Recommendations. 21 Though not raised by CDCR, to the extent that CDCR may have filed objections to the 22 Magistrate Judge’s order, not the Findings and Recommendations, CDCR fails to present 23 grounds for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (providing fourteen-day objection period 24 for magistrate judge’s orders). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when 25 reviewing a magistrate judge’s order, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely 26 objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to 27 law.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); L. R. 303. The assigned district judge may also 28 reconsider any matter sua sponte. L.R. 303(g). 2 1 Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate 2 judge’s ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 3 mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 4 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 5 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent 6 review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id. 7 CDCR fails to raise issues that merit reconsideration. CDCR challenges only the Court’s 8 ruling that CDCR did not object to the Findings and Recommendations, which was explained 9 above.1 10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that CDCR’s motion for reconsideration, filed 11 August 24, 2012, is denied. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: b9ed48 August 27, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 CDCR’s concerns in its objections were addressed. On August 22, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an order addressing CDCR’s objections. ECF No. 181. 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?