(PC) Smith v. Parriot et al
Filing
65
ORDER DENYING 64 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, MJ on 8/10/2022. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 1:19-cv-00286-JLT-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF MAGISTRATE’S ORDER BY
DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff,
vs.
PARRIOT, et al.,
(Doc. 64.)
Defendants.
16
17
This case is proceeding on Lawrence Christopher Smith’s First Amended Complaint
18
alleging the excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants
19
Cantu, W. Gutierrez, and Mattingly (“Defendants”). (Doc. 22.)
20
The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the Court
21
grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
22
administrative remedies and because the claims in this case are barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
23
512 U.S. 477, 483–87 (1994). (See Doc. 57.) On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay
24
the resolution of Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment so that he could amend
25
his complaint in a related action, Smith v. Secretary, 2:21-cv-00519-WSB-DB, and consolidate
26
all his actions pending before the Court. (Doc. 62.) On July 14, 2022, the magistrate judge
27
issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for stay, noting that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed
28
on the merits of this case. (Doc. 63 at 2.) On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for
1
1
reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s denial of his request for a stay. (Doc. 16.)
2
Defendants have not filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
3
Local Rule 303 provides that “[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate
4
Judge’s ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically designat[ing]
5
the ruling, or party thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection.’” Local Rule 303(c).
6
“The standard that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or
7
contrary to law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” Local Rule 303(f).
8
After review of the magistrate judge’s order and examination of Plaintiff’s arguments in
9
his request for reconsideration, the Court finds no basis for reconsideration. The magistrate
10
judge reasonably concluded that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of the claims in
11
this case. Plaintiff’s suggestion that this case should be stayed so that he can amend his
12
complaint in Smith v. Secretary, 2:21-cv-00519-WSB-DB, is not material to the stay analysis.
13
He fails to indicate how the claims pending in this case are viable and/or otherwise suggest why
14
the magistrate judge’s ruling was erroneous or contrary to law. Based on the foregoing, the
15
Court ORDERS:
16
1.
17
18
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (Doc. 64) of the magistrate judge’s July
14, 2022 order, filed on July 25, 2021 (Doc. 63), is DENIED.
2.
This case is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 10, 2022
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?