Dasenbrock v. Kings County et al

Filing 160

ORDER DENYING 159 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/8/2016. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBIN SCOTT DASENBROCK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:11-cv-01884-DAD-DLB ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. KINGS COUNTY, et al., (Doc. Nos. 152, 154, 156, 157, 159) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Robin Scott Dasenbrock is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against defendants 19 Enenmoh, Page, Perez, and Adair on plaintiff’s claims of negligence and deliberate indifference 20 to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 21 On December 7, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces 22 tecum directed to Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of CDCR. (Doc. No. 152.) Defendants Enemoh and 23 Perez filed an opposition to that motion on December 22, 2015, and plaintiff filed a reply on 24 January 6, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 154, 156.) On January 25, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge 25 denied plaintiff’s motion.1 (Doc. No. 157.) On January 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking 26 27 28 1 In that same order the assigned magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directing the C.S.A.T.F. Director of Nursing to produce numerous documents. 1 1 reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order. (Doc. 159.) 2 I. Analysis 3 Courts review motions to reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling under the “clearly 4 erroneous or contrary to law” standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Miller v. 5 Akanno, No. 1:12–CV–01013–LJO–SKO (PC), 2015 WL 566304, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 6 2015); see also Local Rule 303(f). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is 7 evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and 8 firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. 9 Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks 10 omitted) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 11 364, 395 (1948)). “[R]eview under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential 12 . . . .” Id. at 623. 13 “The ‘contrary to law’ standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal 14 determinations by the magistrate judge.” Estate of Stephen E. Crawley v. Robinson, No. 1:13– 15 CV–02042–LJO–SAB, 2015 WL 3849107, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2015). “An order is 16 contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of 17 procedure.” Id. (quoting Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 18 (D.Minn.2008)). 19 In reviewing pretrial orders of a magistrate, the district court “may not simply substitute 20 its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 21 236, 241 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, “[t]o succeed [on a motion for reconsideration], a party 22 must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 23 decision.” Enriquez v. City of Fresno, No. CV F 10–0581 AWI DLB, 2011 WL 1087149, at *1 24 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011). 25 Here, plaintiff requests that the court reconsider the assigned magistrate judge’s order 26 denying his motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff argues that the 27 magistrate judge erred in denying his request in this regard. Specifically, plaintiff contends that 28 the requested subpoena would not pose an undue burden for defendants and repeats his arguments 2 1 regarding his need for the documents, the breadth of the document requests, the time period 2 covered by the subpoena sought, and the particularity of his request.2 3 Plaintiff has not pointed to any new facts or law suggesting any basis for reconsideration 4 of the magistrate judge’s order. The magistrate judge thoughtfully analyzed plaintiff’s motion 5 and fully explained the many reasons why issuance of the requested subpoena was not 6 appropriate. Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief. Instead, 7 his motion for reconsideration is based on his mere disagreement with the magistrate judge’s 8 determination. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 159) is 9 DENIED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 8, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff also frivolously contends that defense counsel who filed the opposition to plaintiff’s motion lacked standing to do so because he represents only two of the defendants in this action. 3

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?