Morris v. Barra et al

Filing 211

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 205 Objection and Affirming Magistrate Judge's Decision. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 11/26/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CONDALEE MORRIS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 M. BARRA; L. MILLS; D. WHITE; G. J. JANDA; MACE; JANE DOE; AND D. HUBBLE, 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 10cv02642 AJB (BGS) ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECISION (Doc. No. 205) 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. No. 205) to Magistrate Judge Skomal’s order 19 entered October 15, 2012 (Doc. No. 185). In this order, Judge Skomal denied Plaintiff’s motion to 20 compel, denied Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees, granted Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to 21 continue, and denied as moot Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to 22 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 185). 23 24 Legal Standard District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. A district 25 judge may reconsider a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion only "where it has been 26 shown that the magistrate [judge]'s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 27 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 28 240 (9th Cir. 1991). "Under this standard of review, a magistrate [judge]'s order is 'clearly erroneous' if, 1 12cv02642 1 after considering all of the evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 2 mistake has been committed, and the order is 'contrary to law' when it fails to apply or misapplies 3 relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Yent v. Baca, 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 4 2002). 5 6 Discussion Plaintiff’s only specific objection relates to Judge Skomal’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for costs 7 and attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 205, p. 2). More broadly, Plaintiff states that he “objects to each and 8 every respect of the Magistrate Judge[’s] order except as expressly admitted.” Id. The Court will 9 address each of these objections in turn. 10 a. Plaintiff’s Objection to the Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees 11 With regard to Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s objection simply 12 realleges the arguments contained in his motion. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to costs and 13 attorney’s fees because default has been entered1 against Defendants Mace and Hubble. (Doc. No. 205, 14 pp. 3-4). He further alleges that California Code of Civil Procedure sections 386.6 and 585(a) entitle 15 him to recover costs and attorney’s fees. Id. Both of these rationales were rejected in Judge Skomal’s 16 order. As correctly noted by Judge Skomal, there has been no entry of default against any of the 17 defendants in this case. Plaintiff has indeed filed numerous motions requesting the entry of default 18 against Defendants, some of which were entered nunc pro tunc and some of which were rejected for 19 failure to comply with local rules. (See Doc. Nos. 29, 34, 45, 86, 87, 98, 99, 101, 105, 115, 144, 145, 20 148, 175, 176, 177, 203, and 210). However, they have been entirely unsuccessful thus far. (Doc. No 21 185, p. 7). There being no entry of default in the case, Judge Skomal addressed Plaintiff’s reliance on 22 sections 386.6 and 585(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Judge Skomal explained that 23 Plaintiff’s “conclusory request fails to explain how the cited provisions of the California Code of Civil 24 Procedure apply to his case.” Id. For these reasons, Judge Skomal denied Plaintiff’s request. He 25 26 1 27 28 Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that default should have been entered against Defendants and alleges that any decision not to enter default was in error. Plaintiff’s objections in this instance are limited to the denial of costs and attorney’s fees in Judge Skomal’s order entered October 15, 2012. Insomuch as the issue of whether to enter default against Defendants was not decided in this order, it is not an issue appropriate for the Court to consider that issue here. 2 12cv02642 1 further noted that Plaintiff’s request was denied for the same reasons that he had denied Plaintiff’s 2 previous request for attorney’s fees and costs. (See Doc. Nos. 91 and 143). 3 In his objection to Judge Skomal’s ruling, Plaintiff has not provided any persuasive arguments 4 for finding that Judge Skomal’s denial was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Plaintiff simply 5 argues that the entry of default and sections 386.6 and 585(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure 6 entitle him to costs and attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 205, p. 2). These claims are insufficient for the same 7 reasons set forth by Judge Skomal. There has been no entry of default in this matter and Plaintiff fails to 8 explain how the cited provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure apply to his case. Having 9 reviewed the order and Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds Judge Skomal’s analysis to be well- 10 reasoned and persuasive. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled with regard to Judge Skomal’s 11 denial of costs and attorney’s fees. 12 b. Plaintiff’s Broad Objection to the Entirety of Judge Skomal’s Order 13 Plaintiff’s specific objection to Judge Skomal’s order relates solely to the denial of Plaintiff’s 14 motion for costs and attorney’s fees. More broadly, Plaintiff “objects to each and every respect of the 15 Magistrate Judge order except as expressly admitted.” (Doc. No. 205, p. 2). This unsupported 16 statement is the only mention of Plaintiff having objections regarding anything other than the motion for 17 costs and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff has not referenced any additional factual or legal issues within Judge 18 Skomal’s order. Having considered the order as a whole, it appears that Judge Skomal carefully 19 reviewed Plaintiff’s request, the applicable law, and the relevant facts as presented by Plaintiff. 20 Therefore, Plaintiff’s broad objection to the entirety of Judge Skomal’s order is overruled. 21 Conclusion 22 Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Judge’s Skomal order is neither “clearly 23 erroneous” nor “contrary to law.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. (Doc. No. 24 205). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: November 26, 2012 27 28 Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge 3 12cv02642

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?