Chernetsky v. State Of Nevada et al
Filing
117
ORDERED that the # 107 Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/28/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
ANTHONY THOMAS CHERNETSKY,
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
STATE OF NEVADA et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:06-cv-00252-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
This prisoner civil rights claim arises out of Defendants’ alleged refusal to permit
13
Plaintiff to use certain artifacts during religious rituals and the confiscation of some of those
14
artifacts. (See generally Compl., July 7, 2006, ECF No. 6). Pending before the Court is a Motion
15
for Review of Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 107). In the challenged order, the magistrate
16
judge granted Defendants’ motion to extend time to file dispositive motions.
17
18
19
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase
of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . .
will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). In general, the pretrial scheduling order can only be
modified “upon a showing of good cause.” Id. at 608 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)).
20
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rawlinson, J.). The rules as
21
they exist today provide, “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
22
consent.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4). Here, the magistrate judge noted there was good cause to
23
extend the time to file dispositive motions because Plaintiff’s own motion to compel was
24
pending. The extra time to file dispositive motions after the magistrate judge rules on the motion
25
1
to compel is justified because the scope of disclosed materials will depend on that ruling, and the
2
merits of pretrial motions may be affected thereby. The Court denies the motion for review, as
3
the ruling was not clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
4
5
6
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge’s Order
(ECF No. 107) is DENIED.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated this 28th day May, 2013.
Dated this 16th day of of May, 2013.
9
10
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2
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?