Fonseca v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al
Filing
32
ORDER Re: Supplemental Pleading. Fonseca's request that the witness and defense counsel be disciplined or admonished is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/13/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODERICK OLAF FONSECA,
CASE NO. 14cv787-LAB (BLM)
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
14
ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADING
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff Roderick Fonseca's complaint, and Fonseca
19
moved for a preliminary injunction. Both motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara
20
Major for report and recommendation. Judge Major received briefing, and on June 10 issued
21
her report and recommendation. The Court later rejected it and issued its own ruling, granting
22
the motion to dismiss and denying the motion for preliminary injunction. Fonseca then took
23
an appeal, which is now pending.
24
It appears Fonseca also submitted what he intended to be a supplemental brief either
25
in support of his opposition to the motion to dismiss or in support of his motion for preliminary
26
injunction. He dated this document June 10, 2015. Because of administrative delay, that
27
document was not docketed until after the Court had dismissed the complaint and Fonseca
28
had taken an appeal.
-1-
14cv787
1
Assuming Fonseca intended this document as supplemental briefing on the motion
2
to dismiss, he submitted it far too late. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987)
3
(“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”) If he
4
intended it as a reply brief on the motion for preliminary injunction, he was not given leave
5
to file such a document. (See Docket no. 18 (Judge Major's Scheduling Order on Motion for
6
Preliminary Injunction).)
7
These are not merely minor technical slip-ups; Fonseca's tardy or unauthorized filing
8
prevented Judge Major from taking his supplemental document into account when drafting
9
and issuing her report and recommendation. Nor can it have been intended as objections to
10
the report and recommendation, because Fonseca had not even seen the report and
11
recommendation when he wrote the document. Because this case is on appeal, the Court
12
lacks jurisdiction to reverse its decision and so cannot construe it as a motion for
13
reconsideration of the Court's ruling.
14
The motion does, however, request that defense counsel be admonished or
15
disciplined for making false representations to the Court. The notice of appeal deprives the
16
Court only of jurisdiction over the issues appealed, see Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189
17
(9th Cir. 1997), so it appears the Court retains jurisdiction over attorney discipline. That being
18
said, the document's claims of unethical or unprofessional conduct are groundless. The
19
supposedly perjured testimony Fonseca points to merely embodies a dispute of law about
20
whether fish is or is not counted as meat for purposes of the prison kosher diet. Even if the
21
record supported Fonseca's charges of mendacity, which it does not, the witness' opinion on
22
the legal status of fish was immaterial. Finally, even if the document had been docketed in
23
time, it would have changed nothing. The Court considered and rejected Fonseca's argument
24
about fish in the prison kosher diet, and nothing in the supplemental document would change
25
that.
26
///
27
///
28
///
-2-
14cv787
1
In short, for whatever purpose the supplemental document was offered, it is
2
unpersuasive. Fonseca's request that the witness and defense counsel be disciplined or
3
admonished is DENIED.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 13, 2015
6
7
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
14cv787
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?