(PC) Marsala v. Diaz

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 JOSEPH AUGUST MARSALA, No. 2:19-cv-00513-DAD-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ASSIGNED 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FEBRUARY 3, 2022 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 15 Defendants. REQUEST THAT DEFENDANTS PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION [16] (Doc. No. 84) [18] 19 Plaintiff Joseph August Marsala is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . This matter was referred 21 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 3, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion for an order 23 directing defendants to produce a record of plaintiff’s legal correspondence with the court, 24 specifically a record listing the dates when legal mail was received. (Doc. No. 81.) The 25 magistrate judge denied the motion, finding that plaintiff had not shown good cause for the 26 issuance of an order requiring defendants to produce the requested document. (Id. at 1.) 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 On February 17, 2022, plaintiff filed a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court 2 of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling” in which plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the February 3, 2022 3 discovery ruling. (Doc. No. 84.) The standard of review for “all such requests is the ‘clearly 4 erroneous or contrary to law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A).” L.R. 303(f) (citing 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive 6 pretrial matters may be referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the 7 assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a); see also L.R. 303(c). The district judge shall 8 modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s order which is “found to be clearly 9 erroneous or contrary to law.” L.R. 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A). The magistrate 10 judge’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed 11 to determine whether they are contrary to law. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 , 1200– 12 01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th 13 Cir. 1991). “A magistrate judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal 14 standard, fails to consider an element of [the] applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies 15 relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO16 MJS, 2014 WL 3563312 , at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014). “[R]eview under the clearly erroneous 17 standard is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 18 been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. 19 Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 Having reviewed the record in this case, the undersigned does not find that the magistrate 21 judge’s February 3, 2022 order to be either erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s request for 22 reconsideration does not expand on his inadequate showing of good cause as presented in his 23 original motion, nor does it explain how the magistrate judge’s conclusion was erroneous or 24 contrary to law. Despite plaintiff’s claim that he suffered delays in receiving court filings or legal 25 correspondence, he has not pointed to any court established deadlines that he has not been able to 26 meet as a result of those claimed delays, and the docket in this case reflects that the magistrate 27 judge has granted several of plaintiff’s requests for extensions of time when they were needed. 28 (See Doc. Nos. 26, 37, 39, 43, 54, 60, 71); see also Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th 1 | Cir. 1987) (“‘[S]trict time limits .. . ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from 2 | apro se prisoner plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.”) 3 | (quoting Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir.1967)). Having reviewed plaintiffs 4 | original motion, it appears that plaintiff's document request was made, in part, due to this court’s 5 || perceived delay in responding to plaintiff's previous filings, and because of plaintiff's concern 6 | that he was not receiving this court’s orders. (See Doc. No. 77 at 1.) The court advises plaintiff 7 | that it is not unusual that a litigant may need to work on new requests or responses required by the 8 | court before older requests are resolved. Finally, although the magistrate judge did not provide 9 | any elaboration in her order, it was neither erroneous nor contrary to law to deny plaintiffs 10 | motion requesting that defendants be ordered to produce records documenting the dates of his 11 | legal correspondence with the court in this action. 12 Accordingly, plaintiff's request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 84) is denied. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ October 31, 2022 □□□ A. 2, el 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE