Langley v. Tulare Police Department et al

Filing 88

ORDER DENYING 74 Motion and 77 Motion, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/23/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY LANGLEY,

12

No. 1:16-cv-00336-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

JOSE COLEGIO,

15

Defendant.

16

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION, DENYING
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND
DENYING REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING
(Doc. Nos. 74, 77)

17
On April 4, 2018, the undersigned issued an order adopting the findings and

18
19

recommendations of the assigned magistrate judge, who had recommended that plaintiff’s claim

20

of excessive use of force should proceed against defendant Colegio, and that all other defendants

21

and claims should be dismissed. (Doc. No. 70.) That same order also adopted the

22

recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied as premature,

23

since it was filed prior to filing of the now-operative complaint in this action. (See id.; see also

24

Doc. No. 64.)
On April 23, 2018, plaintiff sought reconsideration of the order adopting the findings and

25
26
27
28

recommendations. (Doc. No. 74.)1 In doing so, plaintiff argues that he has sufficiently alleged
1

Plaintiff filed an identical document on June 8, 2018. (Doc. No. 77) Because these documents
are identical, they will not be treated separately here.
1

1

facts to state a Monell claim against the Tulare Police Department. (Id.) Plaintiff presents no

2

new arguments or allegations to support this conclusory statement, and therefore has provided no

3

basis for the court to reconsider its prior decision. Plaintiff also mistakenly asserts that the

4

undersigned “erred by granting summary judgement [sic] without providing adequate notice and

5

opportunity to be heard, and ruling on evidentiary objections. (Id.) This argument is misplaced,

6

as the court has not granted summary judgment in favor of any party. Instead, the court denied

7

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as premature. (See Doc. Nos. 64, 70.)

8
9

Plaintiff also summarily requests the court to appoint him counsel and hold an evidentiary
hearing “regarding dfendants [sic] Tulare Police Dep’t. prior dismissal from action.” (Doc. No.

10

74.) The court has already denied plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel on April 20,

11

2017. (See Doc. No. 45). Again, plaintiff has presented no reason for the court to revisit that

12

decision. Moreover, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, as plaintiff’s claims against the

13

Tulare Police Department were dismissed due to the insufficiency of the facts alleged by plaintiff

14

in his operative complaint.

15

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s requests to reconsider the court’s order

16

adopting the findings and recommendations, to be appointed counsel, and for an evidentiary

17

hearing, noted in the documents filed on April 23, 2018 and June 8, 2018, are denied. (See Doc.

18

Nos. 74, 77.)

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

August 23, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2