Watts v. Ramos, et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying 79 Motion to Reopen the case signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/14/14. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY WATTS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:09-cv-1515-KJM- CMK-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

R. RAMOS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the case is before the court. (ECF 79.)

18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief

19

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 2, 2009 (ECF 1). The matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On August 20, 2013, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations,

22

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

23

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within a specified time. (ECF 73.) No

24

objections to the finding and recommendations were filed. On September 30, 2013, this court

25

issued an order adopting in full the magistrate judge’s amended findings and recommendations

26

(ECF 77), and a judgment was entered (ECF 78).

27
28

Plaintiff now argues that this court should reopen his case because he did not have the
opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery. (ECF 79 at 2-5.) In essence, plaintiff reasons
1

1

defendants never complied with plaintiff’s discovery requests throughout the litigation; thus,

2

plaintiff was unable to successfully oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Id.)

3

After reviewing the file in this case and plaintiff’s arguments, the court finds the

4

reopening of this case is unwarranted. Throughout the litigation, the parties requested discovery

5

be reopened on various occasions, and the court granted the parties’ requests. (See ECF 34.) The

6

last extension was granted in a May 18, 2001 order, where the court extended the discovery

7

deadline to July 20, 2011, “with any motion to compel filed within 60 days of [that] date.” (Id. at

8

2.) Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on July 15, 2011. (ECF 35.) The

9

court denied that motion. (ECF 38.) Because plaintiff had the opportunity to raise defendants’

10

alleged failure to respond to his discovery requests during this litigation, the court finds plaintiff’s

11

post-judgment arguments unavailing.

12
13

Accordingly, the court HEREBY DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the case.
DATED: April 14, 2014.

14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2