Lombardelli v. Halsey, et al.

Filing 101

ORDER DENYING 98 Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Involvement in Action and ORDER DENYING 99 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/14/2012. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALFRED C. LOMBARDELLI, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00658-AWI-DLB PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE INVOLVEMENT IN ACTION v. K. HALSEY, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 98, 99) 12 / 13 14 Plaintiff Alfred C. Lombardelli (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 15 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 17 against Defendants E. Ortiz, S. Smyth, I. Sanchez, K. Halsey, K. Carter, and R. Vogel. Pending 18 before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s objection to United States Magistrate Judge involvement in 19 this action, filed August 22, 2012, and 2) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate 20 Judge’s August 3, 2012 Order, filed August 22, 2012. 21 Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck’s involvement in this action, namely 22 the issuance of a Findings and Recommendations on June 29, 2012, and his order granting 23 Plaintiff leave to file an amended opposition. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a United 24 States District Judge may designate a magistrate judge to submit a proposed findings of fact and 25 recommendations for disposition as to a motion for summary judgment. It is the practice of the 26 United State District Court for the Eastern District of California for district judges to designate a 27 magistrate judge to issue a findings and recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), 28 a magistrate judge may also be designated to determine any pretrial matter pending, with certain 1 1 exception. Thus, Magistrate Judge Beck’s issuance of the order granting Plaintiff leave to file an 2 amended opposition or proceed with his current opposition is well within the magistrate judge’s 3 duties and authority. The Local Rules of this Court provide for the adjudication of prisoner civil 4 rights actions, such as the one here, in the manner just described. See Appendix (k) of the Local 5 Rules. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. 6 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order which required 7 Plaintiff either to file an amended opposition or proceed with his current opposition. Plaintiff 8 contends that requiring Plaintiff to file an amended opposition puts a heavy burden on Plaintiff, 9 who is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff requests leave to file a shorter supplemental opposition 10 11 instead. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge’s order, 12 “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part 13 of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); see also 28 14 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); L. R. 303. The assigned district judge may also reconsider any matter sua 15 sponte. L.R. 303(g). 16 Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate 17 judge’s ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 18 mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 19 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th 20 Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent review 21 of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id. 22 The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to 23 law. It is the general practice of this Court not to permit piecemeal filings of documents. 24 Plaintiff’s burden as a pro se litigant is no greater than other pro se litigants, who would also be 25 subject to the requirements of filing a whole document.1 26 27 1 28 On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. 2 1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s objections, filed August 22, 2012, are denied; and 3 2 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed August 22, 2012, is denied. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 September 14, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?