Carr v. Cate et al

Filing 66

ORDER overruling 63 Objections to 61 Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/25/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ORRIN CARR, 10 Plaintiff, 11 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01931-LJO-GBC (PC) v. ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO ORDER BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE Docs. 63 & 61 12 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 I. Procedural History 16 On December 17, 2008, Plaintiff Orrin Carr (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se 17 and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants 18 Matthew Cate and James Yates (“Defendants”). In his complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to declare 19 “over familiarity” as an underground regulation and order an injunction against future charges of 20 “over familiarity.” Pl. Compl. at 3, Doc. 1. 21 On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. Doc. 27. 22 In that motion, Plaintiff requested the Court to compel Defendants to produce all citations issued for 23 “over familiarity” for the last fifteen to twenty years. See Pl. Mot. Compel. Doc. 27. On November 24 29, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel, without prejudice. Doc. 33. On December 25 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the motion to 26 compel. Doc. 35. On January 7, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of 27 Plaintiff’s motion to compel, in part. Doc. 36. The Court ordered Defendants to produce “over 28 familiarity” citations within a four-year time frame. See Order at 3, Doc. 36. However, the Court left Page 1 of 3 1 open the opportunity for Defendants to file objections, if the production of documents would be 2 overly burdensome. See Order at 3-4, Doc. 36. On February 7, 2011, Defendants filed further 3 objections to the order compelling production of documents, alleging that the request would be 4 overly burdensome. Doc. 40. 5 On May 24, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 48. On June 7, 6 2011, Plaintiff filed a first motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion 7 for summary judgment. Doc. 51. On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for continuance of 8 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until discovery is completed. Doc. 54. On July 29, 2011, 9 Plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for 10 summary judgment. Doc. 55. On August 1, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for continuance 11 of summary judgment until discovery is completed. Doc. 56. On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a 12 motion for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion for continuance of summary 13 judgment until discovery is completed. Doc. 57. On August 22, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 14 file a limited response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, solely addressing Defendants’ 15 argument that Plaintiff’s 2003 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Doc. 58. On September 16 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, solely 17 addressing Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s 2003 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 18 Doc. 58. On December 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge vacated the order granting, in part, Plaintiff’s 19 motion for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of 20 documents and ordered Plaintiff to file a complete response to Defendants’ motion for summary 21 judgment within thirty days. Doc. 61. On December 27, 2011, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion 22 for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion for continuance of summary judgment 23 until discovery is completed and Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Doc. 62. 24 II. Analysis 25 Any ruling of a Magistrate Judge is subject to reconsideration if the party seeking 26 reconsideration files a motion within fourteen days of the ruling. Local Rule 303(b). The order of 27 a Magistrate Judge will be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” as set forth in 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Local Rule 303(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Page 2 of 3 1 2 In Plaintiff’s objections, he contends that in denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Magistrate Judge decided a genuine dispute of material fact. Pl. Obj. at 6, Doc. 63. 3 Local Rule 302(c)(1) refers all motions to compel discovery to the Magistrate Judge assigned 4 to a case. Under this Rule, all discovery motions, including motions to compel, are referred to 5 Magistrate Judges as non-dispositive matters for hearing and final disposition. Thus, the Magistrate 6 Judge was within his authority to decide Plaintiff’s motion to compel. However, even when 7 reviewing the matter de novo, the Court finds that the decision by the Magistrate Judge was 8 supported by the record and by proper analysis. Moreover, the District Court will conduct a de novo 9 of any dispositive motions, including Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. 10 III. Conclusion 11 The order of the Magistrate Judge denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel was not “clearly 12 erroneous or contrary to law.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections filed on January 5, 2012 are 13 HEREBY OVERRULED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: b9ed48 January 25, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 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?