Hisle v. Conanon, et al.
Filing
74
ORDER DENYING 65 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/19/19. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DENNIS CURTIS HISLE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
MARLYN CONANON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Case No. 1:17-cv-01400-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
[ECF No. 65]
Plaintiff Dennis Curtis Hisle is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed May 13, 2019.
20
I.
21
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
22
This action is proceeding against Defendants Marlyn Conanon and John Doe (at Mercy
23
Hospital) for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.1
On April 10, 2018, Defendant Conanon filed an answer to the complaint. On April 11, 2018,
24
25
the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order.
26
27
28
1
The John Doe Defendant has not yet been identified or served with process.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for subpoenas. Defendant filed an opposition on
April 12, 2019, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 24, 2019.
On April 30, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part, Plaintiff’s motion
for issuance of subpoenas.
As previously stated, on May 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s April 30, 2019 order.
7
II.
8
DISCUSSION
9
Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,
10
722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.
11
Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
12
to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of
13
Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986).
14
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that nondispositive pretrial matters may be
15
referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge. See
16
also Local Rule 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s
17
order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f); see also 28
18
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Discovery motions are nondispostive pretrial motions which fall under Rule
19
72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and the orders resolving such motions are subject to the “clearly
20
erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review. Rockwell Inter., Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Indus., Inc.,
21
712 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1983).
22
The magistrate judge’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error and the legal
23
conclusions are reviewed to determine if they are contrary to the law. United States v. McConney,
24
728 F.2d 1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds in Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947
25
F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect
26
legal standard, fails to consider an element of applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies
27
relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS,
28
2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) (citing Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs,
2
1
284 F.R.D. 452, 459 (D. Ariz. 2012)). A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous”
2
when the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
3
Security Farms v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997).
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to
4
5
consider and/or deny his request for issuance of a subpoena to obtain the radiologic images of his
6
injury from Mercy Hospital. In the April 30, 2019 order, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s first
7
request for a subpoena of the x-ray imaging because he already has access to such records, but granted
8
Plaintiff’s second request for a subpoena to identify the x-ray technician or person who performed the
9
imaging on May 1 through May 16, 2016. (ECF No. 63.)
Plaintiff contends that he did not request a subpoena for the x-ray images on DVD, but rather
10
11
the radiologic copies of the x-ray images to “be presented to juror at trial to exhibit the progression of
12
growth development of the hematoma.” (Mot. at 3:12-14, ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff further submits that
13
he is now in possession of the identity of the x-ray technician and a subpoena is no longer necessary.
14
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. The Magistrate Judge previously denied Plaintiff’s motion
15
to compel Defendant to produce the radiologic images in a specific format. (ECF No. 33.) The Court
16
specifically found that Plaintiff’s request to have the material produced in a specific format was
17
outside of the scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1):
Lastly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the material produced in the format requested is
proportional to the needs of the case. Indeed, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff is not an expert
and is not qualified to interpret the x-ray and CT scan images. Defendant has provided
Plaintiff with the accompanying radiology reports that explain the observations of the
examining radiologist. Plaintiff fails to explain how his personal ability to view these images
is of any greater importance or relevant to his claims than the reports of the non-party
radiologists who interpreted these images during his examination.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Id.)
Here, Plaintiff is not an expert, and Defendant has produced Xerox copies of the images and
conclusion of the examining radiologist. Other than Plaintiff’s claim that he wishes to present these
images if and when the case goes to trial, Plaintiff fails to present a valid reason why he needs to view
these images in that specific format. Further, Plaintiff’s unqualified opinion of what he believes these
images may show in insufficient to warrant further disclosure of the images for which he already has
3
1
access. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the April 30, 2019, order shall be
2
denied.
3
III.
4
ORDER
5
6
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
of the Magistrate Judge’s April 30, 2019, order is DENIED.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
June 19, 2019
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?