McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 154

ORDER that 152 Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Koppe's Order is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have up to, and including July 19, 2013, to file a response to the motion to dismiss 136 that complies with the local rules, including that it be limited to no more than 30 pages of double-spaced text. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/28/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,

8
9

2:11-CV-1538 JCM (NJK)

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,

12
Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Robert Joseph McCarty’s motion for

16

reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Koppe’s order. (Doc. # 152). Defendants, Roos et al., have not

17

responded.

18

I.

Background

19

On March 22, 2013, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint alleging that his civil rights

20

were violated when he was required to registered as a sex offender based on a Japanese conviction.

21

(Doc. # 133). On April 5, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 136). On April 12,

22

2013, plaintiff filed a response. On April 22, 2013, defendants filed a reply and a motion to strike

23

plaintiff’s overlong response. (Doc. # 147 and 146).

24

On April 23, 2013, Magistrate Judge Koppe issued an order granting defendant’s motion to

25

strike. (Doc. # 148). On April 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of intellectual inability to change his

26

response. (Doc. # 150). On April 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Koppe issued an order requiring

27

plaintiff to file an amended response to the motion to dismiss that complies with the local rules.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

(Doc. # 151). Plaintiff timely filed the instant motion for reconsideration asking this court to

2

reconsider the magistrate judge’s order. (Doc. # 152).

3

II.

Legal Standard

4

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court review

5

under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R.

6

CIV. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a

7

magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the

8

magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “This subsection would also

9

enable the court to delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate, such as . . .

10

assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the court.” Gomez

11

v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869, 109 S. Ct. 2237, 104 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1989).

12

“A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing

13

body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

14

committed.” United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “An

15

order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of

16

procedure.” Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc. v. Kemet Blue Powder Corp., 3:11-CV-00793-RCJ,

17

2012 WL 3884939, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2012).

18

A magistrate’s pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is not subject to de novo

19

review, and the reviewing court “may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding

20

court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

21

III.

Discussion

22

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Koppe’s order (doc. # 151), and plaintiff’s objections (doc.

23

# 152) the court determines that the order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See 28

24

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Pro se litigants are required to follow court rules. See Carter v. C.I.R., 784

25

F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, plaintiff has failed to follow the local rules and has not show

26

that an exception should be made to the page limitation and formatting requirements of Local Rules

27

7-4 and 10-1. Magistrate Judge Koppe’s order was factually correct and consistent with controlling

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

law, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

2

IV.

Conclusion

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that pro se plaintiff Robert

5

Joseph McCarty’s motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Koppe’s order (doc. # 152) be,

6

and the same hereby is, DENIED.

7

IT FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have up to, and including July 19, 2013, to

8

file a response to the motion to dismiss (doc. # 136) the complies with the local rules, including that

9

it be limited to no more than 30 pages of double-spaced text.

10

DATED June 28, 2013.

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-