Todd v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilition et al

Filing 109

ORDER Denying 97 Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/18/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL ANTHONY TODD,

12

No. 1:12-cv-01003-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

D.J. RUIZ, et al.,

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S ORDER
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 97)

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 18, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge formally

19

lifted the stay imposed in this matter nunc pro tunc and granted the request of defendants Smith-

20

Robicheaux, Musselman, Mayo, and Ruiz for an extension of time to file an opposition to

21

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to file a cross-motion for summary judgment.

22

(Doc. No. 95.) On January 11, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking review of the magistrate

23

judge’s order granting the extension of time, which the court will construe as an objection

24

brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). (Doc. No. 97.) The court reviews this

25

objection under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a). See Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236,

27

240 (9th Cir. 1991) (non-dispositive pretrial orders are reviewed for clear error under Rule 72(a)).

28

/////
1

1

Some procedural history is appropriate to recount. On January 13, 2017, the magistrate

2

judge granted the parties’ stipulation to stay this action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss

3

the second amended complaint filed by former defendants Indermill, Albitre, and Carron. (Doc.

4

No. 75.) The court granted the relevant motion to dismiss on August 7, 2017, and plaintiff sought

5

to appeal that decision. (Doc. Nos. 79, 80.) On September 21, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of

6

Appeals dismissed plaintiff’s appeal, issuing its mandate on October 16, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 87,

7

92.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on November 6, 2017. (Doc. No. 93.) The

8

remaining defendants did not file an opposition to that motion, believing the court would issue a

9

separate order lifting the stay and setting a new schedule in the case. However, apparently

10

reconsidering that approach, defendants moved for a thirty-day extension of time to oppose

11

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and file a cross-motion for summary judgment on

12

December 13, 2017. (Doc. No. 94.) Finding there was no prejudice to plaintiff and that the status

13

of the case needed to be clarified in any event, the magistrate judge issued an order granting

14

defendants’ request for an extension of time and lifting the stay nunc pro tunc on December 18,

15

2017. (Doc. Nos. 95, 97.) This is the order to which plaintiff now objects.

16

Plaintiff asserts he was, in fact, prejudiced by the order, since otherwise the defendants

17

would have been in default and he would have prevailed in this action. (Doc. No. 97.) The

18

undersigned disagrees since plaintiff clearly would not be automatically victorious in the

19

litigation but for the magistrate judge’s order. See C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden

20

Rest., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When the party moving for summary judgment

21

would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it

22

to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.”) (internal quotations omitted).

23

The magistrate judge’s order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly,

24

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 97) is denied.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:

July 18, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2