Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv973-GPC(BGS)

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

[Dkt. Nos. 157, 200.] 

vs.

A. NUNEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

A. June 15, 2016 Objection

On June 15, 2016, Plaintiff Brandon Meeks, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed

an objection to the Court’s order filed on May 19, 2016, (Dkt. No. 151), directing

Plaintiff to comply with the deposition notice as it is “misguided, contrary to law and

clearly erroneous.” (Dkt. No. 157 at 1-2.) Plaintiff also argues that, on May 8, 2016,

he filed an objection to the Court’s order filed on May 4, 2016, (Dkt. No. 145), which

was never docketed and never addressed. He further claims that the Magistrate Judge’s

second amended scheduling order dated May 19, 2016, (Dkt. No. 152), was clearly

erroneous and contrary to law. 

Plaintiff repeats arguments addressed previously by the undersigned judge and

the Court construes his Objections as a motion for reconsideration as there is no

- 1 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 217 Filed 01/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

provision to object to a district judge’s order. 

1

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence; (2) clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see Orange Street

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A] motion for reconsideration

should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

intervening change in the controlling law.”) “A motion for reconsideration cannot be

used to ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through merely

because a party disagrees with the Court's decision. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252

F. Supp. 2d 936, 938 (D. Az. 2003) (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d

1112, 1116 (D. Az. 1998)). 

The arguments presented in the Objection has already been raised and addressed

by the undersigned judge. (See Dkt. Nos. 145, 156.) As to his first objection to the

Court directing Plaintiff to comply with the deposition notice, the Court explained that

while Defendants initially failed to obtain leave of court to depose Plaintiff asrequired

by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”), “it was not contrary to law for the

Magistrate Judge to construe the court’s order as granting Defendants’ leave of court

to depose Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 145 at 5.) Therefore, the Court directed Plaintiff to

comply with the deposition notice. (Id. at 7.) Furthermore, while Plaintiff objects to

the Court’s prior orders filed May 4, 2016 and May 16, 2016, the Court previously

noted that “there is no procedure for Plaintiff to file objections to rulings of the

undersigned judge, and Plaintiff provides no legal authority supporting his assertion.” 

Plaintiff claims he is entitled to object to any court order under Federal Rule of 1

Civil Procedure 46. However, Rule 46 provides a procedure to object during trial, not

to court orders prior to trial. See Schissel v. Wells, No. 07-C-0722, 2007 WL 2116376,

at *7 (E.D. Wis. July 19, 2007) (Plaintiff’s objection to court order construed as motion

for reconsideration since no trial has taken place); see e.g., Sprynczynatyk v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 771 F.2d 1112, 1118 (8 Cir. 1985) (applying Rule 46 in context of trial). 

 

- 2 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 217 Filed 01/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

(Dkt. No. 156 at 2.)

As to the objection that the Court never docketed his objection sent on May 8,

2016, the Court noted that the docket does not reflect any objection or notice of appeal

filed after the Court’s order entered on May 4, 2016. (Dkt. No. 156.) Even the

Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court is not in possession of any objection or

notice of appeal dated May 7, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 174, 190 at 3.) The Magistrate Judge

responded to Plaintiff’s concerns and provided him the two opportunities to re-file the

Objection he claims he mailed on May 8, 2016, but he has failed to resubmit it. (Dkt.

Nos. 174, 190.)

Next, Plaintiff objectsto the second amended scheduling order of the Magistrate

Judge because the date of the case management conference was incorrect, stating

October 30, 2014 instead of October 29, 2015. In its prior order, the Court overruled

the objection noting that it appeared the error was a typographical mistake as the case

management conference was held on October 29, 2015 and there was no prejudice or

harm to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 156.) 

Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, demonstrated any

clear error or any intervening change in controlling law to justify reconsideration of the

Court’s prior orders. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration and OVERRULES his Objection filed on June 15, 2016.

B. October 5, 2016 Objection

On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

order, (Dkt. No. 190), denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and ordering

Plaintiff to refile his allegedly missing objection dated May 7, 2016. (Dkt. No. 200.) 

He argues the order was not entered in compliance with the Rules and is erroneous and

contrary to law. (Id. at 1.) 

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for ruling asking that the court file his

objections dated May 7, 2016. (Dkt. No. 169.) He claims that after the Court issued

its order, dated May 4, 2016, overruling Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

- 3 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 217 Filed 01/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

discovery ruling and denying Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions, and

required that Plaintiff attend his deposition, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Court’s

order, which was dated May 7, 2016 and mailed on May 8, 2016. (Id.) He claims that

Clerk’s office has failed to exercise due diligence by not filing his objection. (Id.) On

July 14, 2016 the Magistrate Judge denied his request for ruling noting that an

objection dated May 7, 2016 was not found on the docket but granted Plaintiff

permission to refile his objections. (Dkt. No. 174.) 

On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order

arguing that the Court had not specifically denied receipt of his objection and had

circumvented the issue; therefore, he claims the Magistrate Judge’s order was

misguided and clearly erroneous. (Dkt. No. 185.) 

On September 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff’s Objection as

a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 190.) The court again acknowledged that

Plaintiff’s objection dated May 7, 2016 is not reflected on the docket and stated that

the Court is not in possession of the objection. (Id. at 3.) The Magistrate Judge again

granted Plaintiff permission to re-file his objection by September 30, 2016. (Id.) 

In his instant Objection, it appears Plaintiff is arguing that the undersigned judge

should have ruled on his Request for Ruling, (Dkt. No. 169), and Objection to Pretrial

Order of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. No. 185), instead of the Magistrate Judge. 

It was not erroneous or contrary to law for the Magistrate Judge to construe

Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s order as a motion for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff essentially sought the same relief as his request for ruling and the Magistrate

Judge provided him relief by allowing him to re-file his May 7, 2016 objection. To

date, Plaintiff has not re-filed that Objection. Moreover, on June 2, 2016, Plaintiff had

already raised this issue with the undersigned judge by filing an Objection that

included an argument that his May 8, 2016 Objection had not been addressed by the

Court. (Dkt. No. 155.) On June 15, 2016, the Court noted that the docket does not

reflect any objection or notice of appeal filed after the Court’s order entered on May

- 4 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 217 Filed 01/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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, 2016. (Dkt. No. 156.) On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the

Court’s order, (Dkt. No. 156), overruling his objections which the Ninth Circuit

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on October 20, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 165, 204.) 

Plaintiff has provided no legal authority that the Magistrate Judge’s order was

erroneous or contrary to law. Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection filed

On October 5, 2016. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection filed on June 15, 2016 and OVERRULES

Plaintiff’s Objection filed on October 5, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 19, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 217 Filed 01/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5