Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-29/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S ORDER

(Doc. 135.)

I. BACKGROUND

Eric Charles Rodney K’napp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the 

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants 

Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (“Lt.”) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. 

Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff 

by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to another prison, and 

against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 140 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First 

Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.) 

On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by the District Judge 

of the Magistrate Judge’s order of October 6, 2014. (Doc. 135.) 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT JUDGE

A. Legal Standard

Local Rule 303 provides that "[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate 

Judge's ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically designat[ing] 

the ruling, or part thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection. This request shall be 

captioned 'Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge's Ruling.'" 

Local Rule 303(c). "The standard that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the 

'clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A)." Local 

Rule 303(f). The clear error standard is highly deferential and is only met when “the reviewing 

court is left with a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Cohen 

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 586 F.3d 703, 708 (9th Cir.2009) (citations omitted). A magistrate judge's 

decision is “contrary to law” if it applies incorrect legal standards, fails to consider elements of 

applicable standards, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of 

procedure. Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup'rs, 284 F.R.D. 452 (D. Ariz. 2012).

///

///

 

1On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him 

indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all but the 

May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff 

for having a clothesline inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, were dismissed by the Court 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) The Court also dismissed defendants 

Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies for the claims 

against them before filing suit. (Id.) All other claims and defendants, other than those listed above, were 

dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 

29.)

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 140 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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

B. Magistrate Judge’s Order of October 6, 2014

The Magistrate Judge’s order of October 6, 2014, addressed Plaintiff’s Rule 36(a)(6) 

motion of August 15, 2014 and found Defendants’ objections and responses to Plaintiff’s 

Fourth Request for Admissions to be sufficient. The order found that many of Plaintiff’s 

Requests for Admissions violated Rule 36 and largely failed to comply with the court’s order of 

March 11, 2014 which had given Plaintiff specific instructions for preparing his Requests. The 

order found that Defendants had made a good faith attempt to provide well-reasoned responses 

to Plaintiff’s Requests, made proper admissions and denials, and raised appropriate objections. 

The order also found that although Defendants’ objections contained boilerplate responses, 

Defendants had nonetheless considered Plaintiff’s requests and made responses when possible. 

The order concluded that Defendants were not required to provide further responses to any of 

the requests in Plaintiff’s Fourth Request for Admissions. 

C. Plaintiff’s Objections

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s order on the grounds that the Magistrate 

Judge disregarded Defendants’ failure to oppose his Rule 36(a)(6) motion, failed to 

independently address each of Plaintiff’s arguments, wrongly accused Plaintiff of violating 

Rule 36(a)(2), wrongly accused Plaintiff of improperly referring Defendants to previous 

requests for admissions, and wrongly accused Plaintiff of failing to limit his requested 

admissions to issues relevant to his claims.

D. Discussion

“[A] district court ‘has wide latitude in controlling discovery’ and [] decisions 

governing discovery are highly fact-intensive.” In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 

1168, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting White v. City of San Diego, 605 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir.

1979); accord Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

The Court has examined the order of October 6, 2014 and reviewed this entire case, 

including all of Plaintiff’s objections, and finds that the Magistrate Judge appropriately 

considered Plaintiff’s Requests and Defendants’ Responses and found Defendants’ objections 

and responses to Plaintiff’s Fourth Request for Admissions to be sufficient. Any error found is 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 140 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 4
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

of no consequence in light of the entire evidence and does not leave the court with a “definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” The Court finds the Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling to be within his discretion and not contrary to law. Thus, the Court does not find 

the Magistrate Judge’s order of October 6, 2014 to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be 

denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration, filed on October 20, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 140 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 4