Carr v. Cate et al

Filing 62

ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration Of The Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Continuance Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Docs. 56 & 57 ), ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration Of The Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production Of Documents (Docs. 35 & 33 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/26/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4

ORRIN CARR,

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01931-LJO-GBC (PC)

5

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
6
7

v.

8

Docs. 56 & 57
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

9
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

11
Docs. 35 & 33
12

/

13
I. Procedural History
14
On December 17, 2008, Plaintiff Orrin Carr (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se
15
and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants
16
Matthew Cate and James Yates (“Defendants”). In his complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to declare
17
“over familiarity” as an underground regulation and order an injunction against future charges of
18
“over familiarity.” Pl. Compl. at 3, Doc. 1.
19
On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. Doc. 27.
20
In that motion, Plaintiff requested the Court to compel Defendants to produce all citations issued for
21
“over familiarity” for the last fifteen to twenty years. See Pl. Mot. Compel. Doc. 27. On November
22
29, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel, without prejudice. Doc. 33. On December
23
16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the motion to
24
compel. Doc. 35. On January 7, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of
25
Plaintiff’s motion to compel, in part. Doc. 36. The Court ordered Defendants to produce “over
26
familiarity” citations within a four-year time frame. See Order at 3, Doc. 36. However, the Court left
27
open the opportunity for Defendants to file objections, if the production of documents would be
28
Page 1 of 3

1

overly burdensome. See Order at 3-4, Doc. 36. On February 7, 2011, Defendants filed further

2

objections to the order compelling production of documents, alleging that the request would be

3

overly burdensome. Doc. 40.

4

On May 24, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 48. On June 7,

5

2011, Plaintiff filed a first motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion

6

for summary judgment. Doc. 51. On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for continuance of

7

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until discovery is completed. Doc. 54. On July 29, 2011,

8

Plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for

9

summary judgment. Doc. 55. On August 1, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for continuance

10

of summary judgment until discovery is completed. Doc. 56. On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

11

motion for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion for continuance of summary

12

judgment until discovery is completed. Doc. 57. On August 22, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

13

file a limited response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, solely addressing Defendants’

14

argument that Plaintiff’s 2003 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Doc. 58. On September

15

27, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, solely

16

addressing Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s 2003 claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

17

Doc. 58. On December 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge vacated the order granting, in part, Plaintiff’s

18

motion for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of

19

documents and ordered Plaintiff to file a complete response to Defendants’ motion for summary

20

judgment within thirty days. Doc. 61.

21

II. Analysis

22

Any ruling of a Magistrate Judge is subject to reconsideration if the party seeking

23

reconsideration files a motion within fourteen days of the ruling. Local Rule 303(b). The order of

24

a Magistrate Judge will be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” as set forth in

25

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Local Rule 303(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

26

In Plaintiff’s first motion for reconsideration filed on December 16, 2010, he Plaintiff seeks

27

to compel various documents in discovery related to his claim of “over familiarity.” Doc. 35. The

28

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, based on the findings outlined in the Magistrate
Page 2 of 3

1

Judge’s December 22, 2011 order vacating the order granting, in part, Plaintiff’s motion for

2

reconsideration. Doc. 61.

3

In Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration filed on August 15, 2011, he contends that

4

he cannot file a complete response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the Court

5

has yet to decide the outcome of his motion to compel. However, the Magistrate Judge’s December

6

22, 2011 order also resolved the outstanding discovery issue.

7

III. Conclusion

8

The orders of the Magistrate Judge denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel and denying

9

Plaintiff’s motion for continuance of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment were not “clearly

10

erroneous or contrary to law.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration filed on December

11

16, 2010 and August 15, 2011 are HEREBY DENIED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
b9ed48

December 26, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3