Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 150

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 137 Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order issued on August 7, 2014, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/30/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

LOUIS BRANCH,
Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13
14

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE‟S ORDER
ISSUED ON AUGUST 7, 2014
(Doc. 137.)

Defendants.

15
16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Louis Branch ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

20

commencing this action on July 7, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third

21

Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, against defendants Umphenour,

22

Szalai, and Alvarez (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s

23

safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation

24

in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 94.)

25

On October 21, 2013 and February 21, 2014, the court issued Scheduling Orders

26

establishing pretrial deadlines, including a June 21, 2014 deadline to complete discovery, and a

27

September 2, 2014 deadline for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Docs. 109, 120.)

28

The discovery deadline is now expired.
1

1

On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration by the District Judge

2

of the Magistrate Judge‟s order issued on August 7, 2014, in this case. (Doc. 137.)

3

II.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Local Rule 303 provides that "[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate

5

Judge's ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically designat[ing]

6

the ruling, or party thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection. This request shall be

7

captioned 'Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge's Ruling.'"

8

Local Rule 303(c). "The standard that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the

9

'clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A)." Local

10

Rule 303(f).

11

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge‟s order issued on August 7,

12

2014, in this case, which denied in part Plaintiff‟s motion to compel. Specifically, Plaintiff

13

argues that the Magistrate‟s finding that this action is not proceeding on a claim concerning the

14

“policy and custom of retaliation” is erroneous, and therefore the court should reconsider its

15

decision denying the motion to compel Defendants to produce documents pursuant to

16

Plaintiff‟s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 34, 36, 38, and 39.

17

Discussion

18

Plaintiff is directed to the court‟s September 16, 2013 screening order, which found that

19

this case now proceeds with the Third Amended Complaint, only “against defendants

20

Umphenour, Szalai, and Alvarez for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s safety

21

in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation in

22

violation of the First Amendment.”

23

retaliation claim, the court found that “Plaintiff‟s allegations that Defendant Umphenour told

24

him he would be „dealt with‟ for making a false allegation against an officer and then failing to

25

intervene while Plaintiff was attacked by an inmate are sufficient to state a cognizable claim

26

against Defendant Umphenour for retaliation. However, Plaintiff fails to state any other

27

cognizable claims for retaliation.” (Id. at 10:18-21.) Therefore, Plaintiff‟s retaliation claim

28

proceeds only against defendant Umphenour for failing to intervene during an attack on

(Doc. 103 at 11:19-25.)

2

With respect to Plaintiff‟s

1

Plaintiff. Thus, this case is not presently proceeding on any claim concerning the “policy and

2

custom of retaliation.”

3

The Court does not find the Magistrate Judge‟s order of August 7, 2014 be clearly

4

erroneous or contrary to law under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

5

Therefore, Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

6

III.

7

8

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Plaintiff‟s

reconsideration, filed on August 25, 2014, is DENIED.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

request

for