Heilman v. Cook et al

Filing 145

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Objections to Order. It is ordered that the Court overrules the plaintiff's objections to Judge Schopler's order 138 and denies plaitiff's request to sever his cases from the global settlement conference 144 . Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/12/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,
CDCR #H-76785,

15
16

ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
ORDER

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 14-CV-1412 JLS (MDD)

v.
J. COOK, et al.,

(ECF No. 144)
Defendants.

17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas John Heilman’s Third Request to

18

Sever this Action from the January 18, 2017 Settlement Conference. (ECF No. 144.) After

19

review, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request as an objection to Magistrate Judge Andrew

20

G. Schopler’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Sever. (ECF No. 138.)

21

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), aggrieved parties may file objections

22

to the rulings of a magistrate judge in non-dispositive matters within fourteen days. In

23

reviewing a magistrate judge’s order, the district judge “must consider timely objections

24

and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447

26

U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002). Under

27

the “clearly erroneous standard,” a court should overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling when

28

it is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See
1
14-CV-1412 JLS (MDD)

1

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constrs. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602,

2

622 (1993). A magistrate judge’s legal conclusions as to non-dispositive matters are

3

reviewable for clear error. Grimes v. City of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 240–41 (9th Cir. 1991)

4

(citing Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747–48 (9th Cir. 1990)).

5

On November 22, 2016, Judge Schopler entered an order setting a global settlement

6

conference for both of Plaintiff’s cases for January 18, 2017.1 (ECF No. 129.) On

7

December 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Sever Cases from Joint Settlement

8

Conference. (ECF No. 136.) Judge Schopler denied Plaintiff’s motion on December 29,

9

2016. (ECF No. 138.) In his present request, Plaintiff’s primary objections to a global

10

settlement conference are that (1) he will not settle his case “for peanuts,” (Mot. 4, ECF

11

No. 144), and (2) he deserves to be treated with respect, (id. at 5). However, as Judge

12

Schopler has already stated, and this Court agrees, Plaintiff “will never be required to settle

13

any case,” for “peanuts” or otherwise. (ECF No. 138.) Additionally, the Court does not

14

conclude that holding a joint settlement conference for both of Plaintiff’s cases disrespects

15

Plaintiff. To the contrary, Judge Schopler concluded that “some good may come of having

16

all parties present to discuss issues concerning both outstanding cases.” (Id.) The Court

17

agrees. Thus, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Schopler’s decision to hold a global

18

settlement conference for both of Plaintiff’s cases. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES

19

Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Schopler’s Order (ECF No. 138) and DENIES Plaintiff’s

20

request to sever his cases from the global settlement conference (ECF No. 144).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2017

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s cases are (1) Heilman v. Cook, et. al, 14-cv-1412-JLS (AGS), and (2) Heilman v. Silva, et. al,
13-cv-2984-JLS (AGS)
1

2
14-CV-1412 JLS (MDD)