Santos v. Annikos et al

Filing 79

ORDER - It is therefore ordered that Santos' objection ECF No. 71 to Judge Denney's orderECF No. 66 is overruled. It is further ordered that Santos' objection ECF No. 72 to Judge Denney's orderECF No. 70 is overruled . It is further ordered that that Santos' objection ECF No. 73 to Judge Denney'sorder ECF No. 69 is overruled. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/4/2024. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

RONALD R. SANTOS,

Case No. 3:23-cv-00281-MMD-CSD
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
KENNETH ANNIKOS, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

I.

SUMMARY

12

Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Santos, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada

13

Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), sued prison officials and medical personnel under

14

42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his Constitutional rights because they were

15

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, retaliated against him, and

16

intentionally took his property. (ECF Nos. 6 (screening order specifying which claims are

17

proceeding), 7 (Complaint).) Before the Court are three objections that Santos filed to

18

nondispositive orders issued by United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. (ECF

19

Nos. 71, 72, 73.)1 Because the Court does not find that Judge Denney clearly erred in the

20

three challenged orders—and as further explained below—the Court will overrule the

21

three pending objections.

22

II.

DISCUSSION

23

The three challenged orders are on matters that Judge Denney has authority to

24

finally decide himself. Accordingly, the Court will only overturn the challenged orders if

25

the Court finds they were “clearly erroneous or contrary to law[.]” LR IB 3-1(a). Under this

26
27
28

1Defendants

filed a response to one of them (ECF No. 75) and Santos filed a reply
and notice concerning that same objection (ECF Nos. 76, 77).

1

standard, the Court may not “substitute its judgment” for Judge Denney’s. Grimes v. City

2

& Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Said otherwise, the Court

3

should overturn the challenged orders, “under this ‘significantly deferential’ standard only

4

if it has ‘a definite and firm conviction that a mistake [of fact] has been committed’ or that

5

a relevant statute, law, or rule has been omitted or misapplied.” Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 606

6

F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1020 (D. Nev. 2022), aff’d, Case No. 22-16009, 2023 WL 8047781 (9th

7

Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (footnotes and citations omitted).

8

The Court does not find that Judge Denney clearly erred in the three challenged

9

orders, though it addresses all three of them along with Santos’ pertinent objections

10

below.

11

Santos first objects to Judge Denney’s order ruling that he may not possess his

12

medical records in his cell under the pertinent Administrative Regulation (“AR”) and

13

implicitly rejecting his request for unlimited free copies in furtherance of this litigation,

14

arguing that NDOC was not justified when it changed the pertinent AR in response to

15

prior court decisions from this district so that people incarcerated by NDOC have to submit

16

kites to view and take notes about their medical records instead of keeping copies in their

17

cells or on their persons. (ECF No. 71.) However, the Court cannot find that Judge Denny

18

clearly erred in simply applying restrictions from AR 639 to deny Santos’ motion. (ECF

19

No. 66.) Judge Denney’s order is consistent with the current version of AR 639.03. (ECF

20

No. 75-1 at 5-6.) In addition, AR 639.02(7) provides that people in NDOC custody are not

21

entitled to free copies and must pay for the limited copies of their medical records they

22

need for litigation purposes. (Id. at 5.) Judge Denney’s implicit rejection of Santos’ request

23

for unlimited free copies is thus not a clear error, either. Judge Denney appears to have

24

faithfully applied the governing ARs. And as Defendants point out in their response, the

25

prior cases that Santos refers to in his objection were all interpreting a prior version of AR

26

639, not the current version discussed herein. (ECF No. 75 at 2-3.) In sum, the Court

27
28
2

1

overrules Santos’ objection to Judge Denney’s order not permitting him to keep medical

2

records on his person or in his cell.

3

Santos also objects to Judge Denney’s order denying his motion seeking Judge

4

Denney’s recusal from this case.2 (ECF No. 73.) However, Judge Denney denied Santos’

5

recusal motion primarily because he found Santos sought his recusal based on Santos’

6

disagreement with Judge Denney’s decisions adverse to Santos, which does not

7

constitute a valid basis for a recusal motion. (ECF No. 69 at 3-4.) And despite Santos’

8

argument to the contrary (ECF No. 73 at 2), having reviewed the underlying motion (ECF

9

No. 57), the Court agrees with Judge Denney that Santos primarily argues Judge Denney

10

is biased against him because Judge Denney made rulings unfavorable to him. The Court

11

therefore does not find that Judge Denney clearly erred in denying Santos’ recusal

12

motion.

13

Santos finally challenges Judge Denney’s order denying as moot Santos’ request

14

for a stay of discovery until Judge Denney resolved the motions seeking permission to

15

keep medical records and Judge Denney’s recusal because Judge Denney resolved

16

those two motions before getting to the motion seeking the stay of discovery. (ECF Nos.

17

70 (order), 72 (objection).) But Judge Denney did not clearly err in denying this motion as

18

moot because he had already resolved the other two motions when he issued his order

19

finding the request for a stay of discovery moot. (ECF No. 70.)
For these reasons, the Court overrules all three of Santos’ pending objections to

20
21

Judge Denney’s orders.

22

///

23
24
25
26
27

2Santos

also mentions he ‘rescinds his authorization’ for Judge Denney to preside
over this case, but this is not a case that Judge Denney oversees by consent. (ECF No.
73.) Thus, Santos’ ‘withdrawal of authorization’ is not effective to remove Judge Denney
from this case entirely. See, e.g., LR IB 1-1, LR IB 1-3, LR IB 1-4, LR IB 1-7 (specifying
the duties of magistrate judges in cases where a district judge also presides over the
case).) Judge Denney will continue to preside over this case as the assigned Magistrate
Judge, but Santos may object to Judge Denney’s decisions to the Court—as he has
done—if he chooses.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

III.

CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Santos’ objection (ECF No. 71) to Judge Denney’s order

(ECF No. 66) is overruled.
It is further ordered that Santos’ objection (ECF No. 72) to Judge Denney’s order
(ECF No. 70) is overruled.
It is further ordered that that Santos’ objection (ECF No. 73) to Judge Denney’s
order (ECF No. 69) is overruled.
DATED THIS 4th Day of May 2024.

9
10
11

___
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4