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)

Download PDF
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)

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?