Lewis v. Adams et al

Filing 78

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Objections To Magistrate Judge's Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion To Compel (ECF No. 72 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/7/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

HOMER TYRONE LEWIS,

8
9
10

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00266-LJO-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL

v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

ECF No. 72
11

Defendants.
/

12
13

Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

14

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

15

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

16

Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez, and Davis for

17

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Adams, Junious, Lopez,

18

Davis, and Morrison for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth

19

Amendment.

20

On November 5, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Beck issued an order granting in

21

part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motions to compel. ECF No. 65. Pending before the Court is

22

Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order, filed November 26, 2012. ECF No. 72.

23

Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may serve and file

24

objections to the [magistrate judge’s] order within fourteen days after being served with a copy.”

25

Plaintiff includes a proof of service with his objection, which indicates that Plaintiff placed his

26

objection in the mail on November 16, 2012. Thus, Plaintiff’s objection is timely.

27
28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), “[t]he district judge in the case must
consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
1

1

or is contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); L. R. 303. The assigned district judge may

2

also reconsider any matter sua sponte. L.R. 303(g).

3

Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate

4

judge’s ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

5

mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d

6

980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943

7

(7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent

8

review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.

9

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s order which denied Plaintiff’s motion to

10

compel the production of 1) Protective Housing Unit Officer Post Orders for Corcoran State

11

Prison in 2008, and 2) grievances, complaints, or litigation by inmates against Defendants

12

regarding retaliation and failure to protect.

13

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to

14

law. The Magistrate Judge denied the first request because he found that it was not reasonably

15

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and Plaintiff provided no explanation.

16

The Magistrate Judge denied the second request because 1) it encompassed a time period from

17

January 2007 to the present day, and was thus overbroad in scope, 2) it involved requests for

18

reports prepared by outside law enforcement agencies, which would not generally be in the

19

custody, possession, or control of Defendants, and 3) Plaintiff did not provide a sufficient

20

explanation as to how the request was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

21

admissible evidence. The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge’s order denied the second

22

request without prejudice.

23

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate

24

Judge’s November 5, 2012 Order are denied.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:

February 7, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
B9ed48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2