Lamon v. Adams et al
Filing
151
ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Objections; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for the Magistrate Judge to Amend the August 31, 2011 Order 133 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 01/18/2012. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BARRY LOUIS LAMON,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
ADAMS, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
I.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE TO AMEND THE AUGUST 31,
2011 ORDER (Doc. 133)
________________________________/
15
1:09-cv-00205 LJO SMS (PC)
(Doc. 135)
ORDER
16
A.
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
Background & Plaintiff’s Motion
18
1983. On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Objections to,
19
and Motion for the Magistrate Judge to Amend Her August 31, 2011 Order (Doc. 133).” (Doc.
20
135.) The August 31, 2011 Order denied a motion for an extension of time which Plaintiff
21
sought for filing motion(s) to compel and granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file a reply to
22
Defendant’s response (Doc. 125) to Plaintiff’s statement of discovery needed (Doc. 123). (Doc.
23
133.) In the current motion, Plaintiff concedes that, in his “Second Motion for 30-Day
24
Extension of Time to File a Motion to Compel” (“Original Motion”) (Doc. 132) he used
25
inaccurate language, and clarifies that he is objecting to the order thereon (Doc. 133) “to the
26
extent that it denied [him] ‘allowance’ to file motions to compel.” (Doc. 135, p. 2.)
27
Defendants did not file an opposition. This motion is construed as a motion for reconsideration
28
and is deemed submitted. L.R. 230(l).
1
Local Rule 230(j) provides that a party seeking reconsideration of an order shall present
2
his motion, identifying the order on which reconsideration is sought, and shall support his
3
motion with “an affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth the material facts and
4
circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration is sought, including . . . (3)
5
what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were
6
not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and (4) why the
7
facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
8
9
Plaintiff does not submit any new or different facts or show that circumstances exist,
which did not exist or were not shown in his Original Motion (Doc. 132). Further, Plaintiff’s
10
disagreement with the ruling is not grounds for reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Local
11
Rule 230(j); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880
12
(9th Cir. 2009); Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). While Plaintiff argues
13
that the court misunderstood his Original Motion and that the orders that directed the parties to
14
submit statements of discovery needed allowed him to file motions to compel which he should
15
not be foreclosed from filing (Doc. 135, p. 2), the August 31, 2011 Order specifically quoted
16
verbiage used in the Original Motion. (Doc. 133.) The Court cannot divine or otherwise
17
conjure an intent contrary to the plain meaning of the words written by a party. Plaintiff has no
18
one but himself to blame for utilizing words in his motion that did not reflect his actual intent.
19
However, the Amended Scheduling Order, reopening discovery, issued concurrently herewith
20
allows further propounding of discovery, including motions to compel, so as to make this
21
motion moot.
22
Accordingly, “Plaintiff’s Objections to, and Motion for the Magistrate Judge to Amend
23
Her August 31, 2011 Order (Doc. 133),” filed September 19, 2011 (Doc. 135) is hereby
24
DENIED as moot.
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
icido3
January 18, 2012
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?