Guillen et al v. Callaghan et al

Filing 39

Plaintiff's Objection 38 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 4/2/2014. Mailed to Guillen, (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

FILED
APR 022014
Clb~' u. s

Distr;
Istrict Of Nt ct COurt

NtissOu/~ntanB

CV 13-48-M-DWM-JCL

ALBERTO GUILLEN,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.
COURTNEY CALLAGHAN, and
PATRICKSHANON,
Defendants.

Objections filed by Plaintiff Alberto Guillen, (Doc. 38), are now before the
Court. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C.
Lynch pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(a)(1). Judge Lynch conducted the
pre screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, and entered his Findings
and Recommendations regarding the Complaint, (Doc. 16), which were later
adopted by the Court, (Doc. 19).
Plaintiff objects to Judge Lynch's Order denying his Motion to Compel.
Judge Lynch properly exercised his jurisdiction in entering a determination
regarding Guillen's Motion to Compel, as the Motion is a pretrial matter. See 28
u.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiffs Objection challenges Judge Lynch's

-1­

detennination on this pretrial matter. It is therefore construed as an Objection
brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). When considering
such an objection, "[t]he district judge in the case must modify or set aside any
pert of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Clear error is present if the Court is left
with a "definite and finn conviction that a mistake has been committed." United

States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422,427 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff s Objection is without merit and will be denied. There is no
mistake or error in Judge Lynch's detennination that the videos Guillen seeks are
not relevant to the claims that remain pending in this case. (Doc. 35 at 3-4.)
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel seeks an Order of the Court to require production of
videos filed under seal in a related matter in state court. (Doc. 34.) Neither the
Motion to Compel nor the Objection state any purported relationship ofthe videos
sought to Guillen's remaining claim that the Defendants initially removed the
child without authority. Judge Lynch detennined that the videos are probative of
the state court dependency petition, and not Guillen's claim before this Court.
This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the state court's
judgment in the dependency proceeding. This detennination is sound and not
directly refuted in Guillen's Objection. The Objection and attached transcript
-2­

makes no attempt to assert the relevance of the materials sought for production
and does not present a cognizable retort to Judge Lynch's Order on the Motion to
Compel.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Alberto Guillen's Objection, (Doc. 38), is

J

DENIED.
DATED this

J..

-

day of April, 2014.
~

T""

/
olloy, District Judge
District Court

-3­