Summary
explaining "[i]f the Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse . . . ." (citing Phx. Eng'g & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997))
Summary of this case from Young v. SandovalOpinion
No. 2:10-cv-01300-MCE-CKD
02-14-2013
EDWARD THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. M. BEUTLER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 38). He subsequently filed a Secondary Addendum to his Motion to Compel Discovery on July 27, 2012 (ECF No. 49) and a Brief in Support of the Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 50). In these filings, Plaintiff addressed further the same discovery requests which were the subject of his Motion to Compel (ECF No. 38), and, in addition, addressed a second set of discovery requests which were served on Defendants and to which Defendants objected as untimely. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Third Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Delaney (ECF No. 60).
On October 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Delaney granted Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel in part and denied the Motion in part. (See ECF No. 65.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the Motion was granted to the extent that Defendants make a copy of the videotaped interview available for viewing by Plaintiff, and to the extent that Defendants shall produce certain requested personnel records, subject to a protective order. (Id. at 7, 10-13.) In all other respects, the Motion was denied. (See id.) Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 49) and documents in support thereof (ECF No. 50) were filed after the deadline for motions necessary to compel discovery. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Delaney found that Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 49) was untimely under the applicable scheduling orders, and it was denied. Magistrate Judge Delaney also denied Plaintiff's Third Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 60) as frivolous. (See ECF No. 65.)
On October 12, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion for Order Revoking Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Status under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See ECF No. 66.) On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Third Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 68).
Magistrate Judge Delaney denied Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 68) as moot and ordered all discovery to be stayed, pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's IFP Status, and, if granted, his payment or non-payment of the filing fee. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Delaney recommended that Defendant's Motion for Order Revoking Plaintiff's IFP Status (ECF No. 66) be granted. Plaintiff was thus declared a three-strikes litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, requiring Plaintiff to submit the $350.00 filing fee or face dismissal of the action. On December 20, 2012, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Delaney's Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 72), and granted the Motion for Order Revoking IFP Status, thus declaring Plaintiff a three-strikes litigant. (See ECF No. 84.) Presently before the Court are three Motions for Reconsideration by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 83, 86-87).
In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review set forth in Local Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's decision unless it has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir.1997).
Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The October 10, 2012, Order and the November 7, 2012, Order are therefore affirmed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 83) is DENIED;
2. The Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 65) is AFFIRMED;
3. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 86) is DENIED;
4. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 87) is DENIED; and
5. The Court's Order Adopting Magistrate Judge Delaney's Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 84) is AFFIRMED.
6. Documents filed after this Order is issued will be disregarded and no orders will be issued in response to future filings until Plaintiff submits the $350.00 filing fee for this action, as he has not demonstrated that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE