York v. Stewart et al
Filing
125
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/18/2020. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
REGINALD RAY YORK,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
G. GARCIA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER
(Doc. No. 120)
16
17
Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
18
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of this Court in which
21
22
he requested blank subpoena forms pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. (Doc. No.
23
92.) On March 23, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge construed that letter as a motion for the
24
issuance of subpoenas and denied the motion. (Doc. No. 101.) On April 30, 2020, plaintiff filed
25
a second motion seeking the issuance of subpoenas for nonparties pursuant to Federal Rule of
26
Civil Procedure 45. (Doc. No. 102.) On July 22, 2020, the magistrate judge issued an order
27
denying plaintiff’s second motion. (Doc. No. 119.) On August 27, 2020, plaintiff filed
28
/////
1
1
objections to the magistrate judge’s order denying his second motion for subpoenas1 and a request
2
to disqualify the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 120.)2
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive pretrial matters may
4
be decided by a magistrate judge, subject to reconsideration by the district judge. See also Local
5
Rule 303(c).3 The assigned district judge shall, upon reconsideration, modify or set aside any part
6
of the magistrate judge’s order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local
7
Rule 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Discovery motions are non-dispositive pretrial
8
motions within the scope of Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and are thus subject to the
9
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review. Rockwell Intern., Inc. v. Pos-A-
10
Traction Industries, Inc., 712 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1983). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’
11
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
12
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United
13
States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
In the order denying plaintiff’s second motion, the magistrate judge noted that “the
14
15
discovery deadline in this action expired on November 16, 2017, and was extended to June 22,
16
2018 solely for the purpose of allowing Defendants to depose Plaintiff and to file any necessary
17
motion to compel.” (Doc. No. 119 at 4.) The magistrate judge explained that plaintiff had “not
18
provide[d] sufficient justification for the Court to reopen discovery more than two years later,
19
after the resolution of several rounds of dispositive motions, when this action is ready to proceed
20
The same order denied, without prejudice, plaintiff’s motions seeking the attendance of
unincarcerated and incarcerated witnesses at trial as premature. (Doc. No. 119.) Plaintiff does
not seek reconsideration of that decision.
1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
In his objections, plaintiff argues that there was no deficiency in his December 4, 2019 motion
seeking subpoena forms, and that any deficiency identified was fabricated by the magistrate judge
to rule for defendant J. Neighbors. (Doc. No. 120 at 3, 5.) This argument is irrelevant to
resolution of the pending motion because plaintiff is currently objecting to the July 22, 2020 order
denying his second motion for subpoena and he did not object to the order denying his December
4, 2019 motion.
3
Plaintiff objects that he did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 120 at 3.)
This is immaterial, however, because the magistrate judge has the authority to rule on pretrial
matters, such as the one currently at issue, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.
2
1
to trial.” (Id.) In his objections, plaintiff asserts that his motion for subpoenas was in fact timely.
2
(Doc. No. 120 at 8–15.)
3
According to plaintiff, on April 18, 2018, he was asked by defendant Neighbors in his first
4
set of interrogatories to identify every person by name and address who plaintiff contended had
5
knowledge of any fact supporting the complaint’s allegation that defendant Neighbors could have
6
stopped defendant G. Garcia from dragging plaintiff from his cell. (Doc. No. 102 at 3.) Plaintiff
7
answered that interrogatory by telling defendant Neighbors that the information could be found in
8
his personnel files, and that he would like access to that information to answer the question. (Id.)
9
Plaintiff states that defendant Neighbors obtained the requested information and turned it over in
10
bad faith, in part because plaintiff received it in the form of a declaration significantly later on
11
February 7, 2019, and in part because all the names were blacked out and additional documents
12
with additional names of witnesses were removed. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that this deprived him
13
of information or statements from correctional officers. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff also avers that he
14
objected to the use of this evidence—thus giving notice to the court that defendant Neighbors did
15
not turn over the requested information—when he filed his opposition to defendant Garcia and
16
Neighbors’ motion for summary judgment on February 28, 2019 and when he objected on
17
September 16, 2019 to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations addressing
18
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 4.) Finally, plaintiff avers that he made
19
another request to defendant Neighbors’ attorney to turn over the requested information at the
20
settlement conference held in this action on November 8, 2019, and that request was denied. (Id.)
21
The undersigned is not persuaded that the history of this action as recounted by plaintiff
22
justifies the reopening of discovery in this case. As the magistrate judge explained,
23
As stated in the Court’s March 16, 2017 Discovery and Scheduling
Order, discovery would proceed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 1, 16, and 26–36. (ECF No. 21.) As such, Plaintiff could
have served, for example: written interrogatories (pursuant to Rule
33), requests for production of documents (pursuant to Rule 34), or
written requests for admission (pursuant to Rule 36), at any time
during the discovery period. It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not
serve any such requests on Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. No. 119 at 4.) But even if plaintiff’s response to defendant Neighbors’ interrogatory, his
3
1
opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and his objections to the magistrate
2
judge’s findings and recommendation are all liberally construed as requests for production, given
3
his pro se status, the magistrate judge is correct in observing that plaintiff should have filed a
4
timely motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 if he believed he had
5
properly served a discovery request for the document(s) in question and had been denied the
6
requested discovery. (See id. at 4.) The undersigned also agrees that “if Plaintiff believed that
7
the document constituted an incomplete response to his discovery ‘request,’ Plaintiff again should
8
have filed a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.” (See id. at 5); see
9
also United States v. Griffin, No. CR 02-938(A)-RGK, 2006 WL 8429329, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
10
20, 2006) (Defendant filed a motion to compel further discovery to “object[] to the allegedly
11
“excessive redactions” in the discovery material produced by the government.”) The court need
12
not issue subpoenas given plaintiff’s failure in this regard. See Cantu v. Garcia, No. 1:09-cv-
13
00177-AWI-DLB, 2013 WL 101667, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013), on reconsideration in part,
14
No. 1:09-cv-00177-AWI-DLB, 2013 WL 595100 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2013) (“If Defendant
15
objects to Plaintiff’s discovery request, a motion to compel is the next required step. If the Court
16
rules that the documents or tangible things are discoverable but Defendants do not have care,
17
custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena of a nonparty. Alternatively, if
18
the Court rules that the documents are not discoverable, the inquiry ends. The Court will not
19
issue a subpoena for a nonparty individual without Plaintiff first following the procedure outlined
20
above.”). Thus, the undersigned does finds that the magistrate judge’s discovery order was not
21
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Rockwell Intern., Inc., 712 F.2d at 1325; United
22
States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. at 395.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Finally, plaintiff argues that the assigned magistrate judge should be disqualified from this
case, asserting that the magistrate judge
has demonstrate[d] a pattern of personal bias or prejudice towards
the Plaintiff as an African American prisoner when it comes to his
claims and issues against Defendant Neighbors, where she uses her
influence as a magistrate judge to make her Findings and
Recommendations and Orders to denied the Plaintiff’s claims and
arguments to benefit Defendant Neighbors in this case.
4
1
(Doc. No. 120 at 16.) Plaintiff alleges that the magistrate judge has omitted facts when issuing
2
findings and recommendations, and that “in order for the magistrate judge to continue to omit
3
facts from the Plaintiff motion in favor of Defendant Neighbors, there has to be some form of bias
4
or personal prejudice towards the Plaintiff.” (Id. at 16–18.) The motion seeking disqualification
5
is baseless and will be denied.
6
First, to the extent plaintiff suggests that the magistrate judge has erred omitting facts
7
from findings and recommendations, “[t]his argument does not support a recusal motion. ‘Judges
8
are known to make procedural and even substantive errors on occasion. The errors alleged here
9
would be the basis for appeal, not recusal.’” In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir.
10
2004) (quoting F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1145 (9th
11
Cir.2001)). Moreover, plaintiff has provided absolutely no evidence that would give the
12
undersigned any reason to question whether the magistrate judge was biased or prejudiced against
13
him in any way. See id. (explaining that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid
14
basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments
15
or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and
16
can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . .
17
when no extrajudicial source is involved”) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
18
(1994)).
19
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections, construed as a motion for reconsideration of the
20
magistrate judge’s order denying his motion seeking subpoenas of nonparties, as well as his
21
request to disqualify the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 120) are denied.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated:
November 18, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
5
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?