Opinion
1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG
11-30-2023
LUIS MANUEL GARCES, Plaintiff, v. M. GAMBOA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE ORDERS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EXTENSION REQUEST AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(DOCS. 137, 142 & 152.)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EXTENSION REQUEST AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS
(DOCS. 167, 175 & 176.)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDERS DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO STAY AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND PARTIALLY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
(DOCS. 175, 177, 178 & 182.)
Luis Manuel Garces proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed several objections to several orders issued by the assigned magistrate judge, which the Court addresses here.
On April 26, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file discovery motions. (Doc. 137.) On May 19, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 142.) On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to the Court in Support of Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge.” (Doc. 152.) Although Plaintiff does not cite to any specific order, Plaintiff appears to object to the assigned magistrate judge's rulings regarding his motion for reconsideration and extension request. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff generally argues that the magistrate judge has ignored evidence submitted by Plaintiff and is biased against him in favor of Defendants. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff's objections also include allegations related to his prior requests for injunctive relief. (See id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs previous requests for injunctive relief have been denied by separate order. (See Docs. 137, 146, 118, 147.)
On July 28, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Defendants' motion for a ten-day extension of time to serve interrogatory responses. (Doc. 167). The magistrate judge also denied Plaintiff's request for leave to propound additional interrogatories and Plaintiff's motion to compel interrogatory responses. (Id.) On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed lengthy objections to this order on the grounds that the magistrate judge erroneously denied Plaintiff's discovery requests and prejudiced Plaintiff by granting Defendants' extension of time request to respond to Plaintiff's discovery. (Doc. 174.) On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed further objections. (Doc. 176.) Plaintiff also requests that his case be transferred to another magistrate judge. (Id. at 7.)
On September 11, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff's request to stay and request for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 175.) On September 25, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order denying in part Plaintiff's motions to compel and/or to enforce discovery. (Doc. 177.) On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to this order. (Doc. 178.) Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge has denied Plaintiff's right to discovery by denying his discovery related motions. (See id.) On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed further objections to the magistrate judge's order denying in part Plaintiff's motion to compel. (Doc. 182.)
The order denying Plaintiff's request was issued in conjunction with findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. 175.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Upon review of the orders denying Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file discovery motions (Doc. 137), denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 142), granting Defendants' request for an extension of time (Doc. 167), denying Plaintiff's request for leave to propound additional interrogatories and motion to compel interrogatories (id.), denying Plaintiff's request to stay and request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 175), and partially denying Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 177), the Court finds that the assigned magistrate judge correctly applied the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's objections (Docs. 152, 174, 176, 178 & 182) are overruled and the assigned magistrate judge's orders (Docs. 137, 142, 167, 175 & 177) are affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.