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)

Download PDF
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

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?