Perrotte v. Johnson et al

Filing 234

ORDER ADOPTING 221 Findings and Recommendations to DENY Defendant's 220 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/19/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY P. PERROTTE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS

STACEY JOHNSON,
(Doc. Nos. 220, 221)
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this § 1983

18

action against prison officers in the California State Prison, Corcoran. (Doc. No. 1 at 2–4.) At

19

issue before the court is defendant Stacey Johnson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed

20

on July 29, 2020, after the deadline to file dispositive motions on June 10, 2019 as established by

21

the governing scheduling order had passed. (Doc. Nos. 176 at 1; 220.) This matter was referred

22

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

Pursuant to a scheduling order setting the deadline to file dispositive motions, the assigned

24

magistrate judge found defendant’s motion untimely since the deadline had passed by the time

25

the motion was filed. (Doc. No. 221 at 2) (citing Doc. No. 176 at 1); see also Johnson v.

26

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A scheduling order ‘is not a

27

frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without

28

peril.’”). The magistrate judge also considered that “the pretrial scheduling order [may] be
1

1

modified ‘upon a showing of good cause,’” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080,

2

1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (alteration in original) (citation omitted), and concluded that there was no

3

good cause established to justify considering the untimely motion, (Doc. No. 221 at 2). As a

4

result, the magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion be denied. (Id. at 3.)

5

Defendant filed objections on September 8, 2020. (Doc. No. 222.)

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

7

conducted a de novo review of this case and finds defendant’s objections unpersuasive. The

8

undersigned will not specifically address every argument raised in defendant’s objections,1 but of

9

particular note is the argument by counsel for defendant Johnson that “the Magistrate Judge did

10

not consider the operative Amended Second Scheduling Order in reaching his recommendation.”

11

(Doc. No. 222 at 3.) However, the undersigned observes that the amended second scheduling

12

order did not extend the deadline to file dispositive motions, nor does defendant Johnson’s

13

counsel argue that it does. (Doc. Nos. 218 at 1–2; 222 at 3.) Indeed, the amended second

14

scheduling order does not even discuss the previously set deadline for the filing of dispositive

15

motions in this case. (Doc. Nos. 218 at 1–2; see also Doc. No. 176 at 1.) Nevertheless, defendant

16

seizes on this silence as, in essence, proof that the magistrate judge intended for the parties to file

17

dispositive motions at any time, and for the dispositive motions deadline previously set forth to be

18

implicitly vacated. (See Doc. No. 222 at 3.) The court is not persuaded by defendant’s reading of

19

the court’s scheduling orders. Rather, the pending findings and recommendations correctly

20

interpreted those orders. As clearly specified, the second scheduling order—as well as the

21

amended second scheduling order—was meant to set “a further schedule for this litigation,” and

22

is no way meant to supersede and vacate all previous deadlines established by the magistrate

23

judge simply by not discussing those deadlines. (Doc. No. 206 at 1 (emphasis added); see also

24

Doc. No. 218.)

25
26
27
28

For instance, counsel for defendant Johnson argues that a “Motion for JOP is specifically
authorized by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(c).” (Doc. No. 222 at 1, 4–5.) The
argument is meritless. The magistrate judge did not conclude that Rule 12(c) prohibited
defendant Johnson from filing his motion, nor does Rule 12(c) require the magistrate judge to
consider defendant’s untimely filed motion.
2
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 221) issued on August 18, 2020 are
ADOPTED in full; and
2. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or partial judgment on the pleadings
(Doc. No. 220) filed on July 29, 2020 is DENIED as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3