Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00024-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL ERNEST ALONSO-PRIETO,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

B. PIERCE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00024-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CLARIFICATION

(ECF NO. 75) 

Plaintiff is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). This matter

proceeds on an excessive force claim against Defendant Pierce. 

Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling orders, discovery closed on December 16, 2013 

(ECF No. 30); dispositive motions were due by February 24, 2014 (Id.); the pretrial 

conference is set for December 11, 2014 (ECF No. 74); and trial is set for January 13, 

2015. (ECF No. 60.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s November 20, 2014 motion for clarification. The 

motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s October 30, 2014 order denying Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 79 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

motions to compel discovery, reconsider orders denying discovery, recuse the undersigned 

for bias and transfer venue, and taking under submission Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily 

dismiss this action. Defense counsel filed a declaration in response to the instant motion. 

Plaintiff did not reply. The matter is deemed submitted for ruling. Local Rule 230(l). 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Discovery

Plaintiff seeks further reconsideration of denial of his discovery motions. 

Plaintiff argues his pro se discovery motions were not liberally construed, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and should have granted on the merits. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; Toney v. Gammon, 79 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 1996). He argues it was an 

abuse of discretion to deny him evidence, not specifically requested, where the evidence 

was of substantial value to him, United States v. Agures, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), and the 

circumstances were extraordinary given Defendant’s refusal to respond to his general 

discovery requests.

Plaintiff re-hashes matters previously considered by the undersigned and found 

unpersuasive. Plaintiff is referred to the prior orders for the specific reasons why the Court

ruled as it did. (See ECF Nos. 55, 58, 65 and 71.) Among the reasons were the 

uncertainty as to whether the purported discovery was served on Defendant, whether 

Defendant had responded and if so how, why further responses were appropriate, and why 

Plaintiff failed to move to compel further responses prior to the discovery close date. 

Although Plaintiff includes in the instant motion his alleged discovery requests, he 

nevertheless provides no new or different facts responsive to the above discovery orders. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s unsupported assertions regarding his alleged discovery 

requests and Defendant’s responses are disputed by defense counsel in her declaration

responding to the instant motion. (ECF No. 76). Therein defense counsel states her belief 

that Plaintiff “had not served Defendant with any [discovery] document requiring a 

response.” (Id., at 3:10-12.) 

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 79 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In sum, Plaintiff offers no new or different facts or extraordinary circumstances 

warranting reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 

749 (9th Cir. 2008). Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what 

new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the 

facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

Plaintiff’s reliance upon disclosure standards in criminal and habeas proceedings is 

inapposite in this action. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any error of fact or law in the above discovery orders 

or any basis for reconsideration.

B. Recusal Of Magistrate For Bias

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the undersigned’s refusal to recuse himself from 

this matter. 

Plaintiff re-argues that the above orders show favoritism toward the Defendant. 

Plaintiff also seeks to rescind his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s re-argument fails for reasons stated in the prior order denying recusal.

(See ECF No. 71, at ¶ III.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated any error of fact or law in the 

prior order denying recusal or any basis for reconsideration.

Additionally, the Presiding Judge has assigned the case to the undersigned upon the 

consent of all parties. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff provides no basis upon which he may retract 

or rescind his consent subsequent to such assignment. 

C. Transfer Of Venue

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the undersigned’s denial of change in venue. 

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to change venue based upon the possibility he may 

add currently unidentified defendants. This argument is speculative and unavailing. 

Plaintiff’s request for a change of venue fails for reasons stated in the prior order. (See 

ECF No. 71, at ¶ IV.) 

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 79 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

D. Voluntary Dismissal

Plaintiff argues that his request for voluntary dismissal, which the undersigned 

ordered taken under submission, should be granted without prejudice because Plaintiff has 

called the Court’s integrity into question and the Court has improperly denied his previous 

motions. 

Plaintiff’s claims of impropriety, judicial bias and abuse of discretion in denying his 

previous motions fail for the reasons stated. Plaintiff provides no legal or factual basis for 

the Court to reconsider its order taking under submission Plaintiff’s request for voluntary 

dismissal.

E. Review By Presiding Judge

Plaintiff argues the instant reconsideration motion must be referred to the Presiding 

Judge. This argument fails because, as noted, this case has been assigned for all 

proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment, to the docket of the undersigned.

(ECF No. 67.)

II. ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 

for clarification (ECF No. 75) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 79 Filed 12/09/14 Page 4 of 4