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)

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