Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02689/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02689-2/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

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

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL CLARK,

NO. CIV. S-02-2689 FCD GGH P

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

L. WARREN, et al.

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Michael Clark’s

motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed

October 20, 2005. (Mtn. Reconsid., filed October 27, 2005.) In

said order, the magistrate judge (1) denied plaintiff’s motion to

depose inmate Douglas Young on the ground that plaintiff had not

indicated that he was able to pay for the costs of the deposition

and (2) with respect to plaintiff’s motion to require defendants

to make copies of prison regulations, he directed defendants to

respond to the motion and inform the court as to what policy is

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 67 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 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

2

followed at the prison regarding copying of regulations.

Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of this order by the

undersigned as to both issues. Because the order raises nondispositive pre-trial issues, review is governed by the “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A). As such, the magistrate judge’s order cannot be

set aside or modified unless the findings of fact are clearly

erroneous or the conclusions are contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(a); Grimes v. San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 239-40 (9th Cir.

1991). Having carefully reviewed the magistrate judge’s order

and plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration thereof, the court

finds the magistrate’s judge order with respect to the prison

regulations supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to this

issue is DENIED.

With respect to the deposition of inmate Young, the

magistrate judge correctly denied plaintiff’s motion based on

plaintiff’s September 21, 2005 filing. In that filing, plaintiff

did not indicate he had the ability to pay for the deposition. 

However, in a subsequent motion, seeking the same relief, filed

October 12, 2005, plaintiff clearly stated he had the ability to

pay for the deposition: “through gratuitous assistance of family

and friends [plaintiff] has been and will be able to obtain the

funds to notice, serve and conduct depositions of the five (5)

individuals identified in the attached Notice of Depositions

[which included Young].” (Mot. for Order re Depositions, filed

October 12, 2005, at 1.) As the magistrate judge’s October 20

order only references plaintiff’s September 21 motion, the

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 67 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 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

1 Plaintiff states: “payment for prisoner Young’s

deposition and the other officials’ depositions to be taken

November 15, 2005 has been arranged with the reporter through

friends and family in the community.” (Mot. Reconsider at 1.) 

3

magistrate judge apparently was not aware of the October 21

filing by plaintiff. Based on that subsequent motion as well as

plaintiff’s instant representations on this motion for

reconsideration,1 the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration on this issue. As plaintiff avers he will pay

for the costs of the deposition, his motion for an order

permitting him to depose inmate Young is GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 30(b)(2). 

DATED: November 10, 2005

 /s/Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02689-FCD-GGH Document 67 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 3