Spence v. Beard, et al.

Filing 123

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/5/2021 DENYING 118 Motion for Reconsideration and AFFIRMING 113 Order. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERALD SPENCE, 12 No. 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 G. KAUR, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gerald Spence’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for 17 18 Reconsideration of the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s October 23, 2020 Order (ECF No. 113) granting 19 Defendants G. Kaur and Chambers’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Request for an Extension of 20 Time (ECF No. 112). (ECF No. 118.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is 21 DENIED. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s decision to grant Defendants an 1 2 extension of time to oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 110). (ECF No. 118.) 3 As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely. A party may object to a non- 4 dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within 14 days after service of the order. Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 72(a). Here, the Order was issued and served on October 23, 2020 (ECF No. 113), and 6 Plaintiff filed his Motion on December 13, 2020 (see ECF No. 118 at 1), 54 days later.1 As such, 7 the Motion is denied. Similarly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is rendered moot by the fact that the 8 9 10 Motion to Compel has already been fully briefed by the parties and the magistrate judge has issued a ruling on the motion. (See ECF Nos. 114, 117, 119.) 11 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Plaintiff fails to present any showing whatsoever 12 that the magistrate judge’s decision to grant a 14-day extension of time was “clearly erroneous.” 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-1882 14 JF (RS), 2009 WL 3613511, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009); Martinez v. Lawless, No. 1:12-CV- 15 01301-LJO-SKO, 2015 WL 5732549, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing Kern-Tulare Water 16 Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part 17 on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987)); E.E.O.C. v. Peters’ Bakery, 301 F.R.D. 482, 484 18 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Burdick v. C.I.R., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992)). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 19 20 (ECF No. 118.) The Court affirms the magistrate judge’s Order granting Defendants an extension 21 of time. (ECF No. 113.) 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 5, 2021 24 25 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s filing date was determined pursuant to the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 274 (1988). 1 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?