Porter v. Wegman et al

Filing 189

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 180 Objections to Pretrial Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/7/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN ELLIS PORTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:10-cv-01500-BAM (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

v.
(ECF No. 180)
CHERYLEE WEGMAN,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Brian Ellis Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties have consented to

19

magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 5, 150.) This matter is set for trial on August 29, 2017.
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s July 12, 2017 pretrial

20
21

order.1 (ECF No. 180.) Plaintiff objects to the exclusion from the Court’s pretrial order of his

22

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim against Defendant Wegman, asserting that he has

23

maintained this claim throughout this lawsuit. Plaintiff further requests reconsideration of the

24

Court’s denial of his motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses. (Id.)
On July 28, 2014, Defendants Biter, Castro, Grewal, and Wegman filed a motion for

25
26

summary judgment. (ECF No. 103.) On July 1, 2015, the Court granted the entirety of summary

27
1

28

As Plaintiff’s objections apparently crossed in the mail with the Court’s amended pretrial order, (ECF No. 179), the
Court will address the objections in full.

1

1

judgment, entered judgment, and closed the case. (ECF No. 135.) Plaintiff appealed, and on

2

November 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed summary

3

judgment solely with respect to Plaintiff’s Free Exercise of Religion claim against Defendant

4

Wegman only. (ECF No. 141.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, his Fourteenth Amendment

5

Equal Protection claim did not survive summary judgment.

6

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his motion

7

for attendance of incarcerated witnesses, Plaintiff was provided with ample opportunities to

8

proffer grounds for the testimony of Inmates Williams and Hamilton. That Plaintiff now asserts

9

the witnesses will corroborate his own testimony does not justify reconsideration.

10
11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the July 12, 2017 pretrial order, (ECF No. 180), are
OVERRULED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 7, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2