Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01864/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01864-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

WO

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Paul Anthony Robledo,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Nicole Taylor, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01864-PHX-JAT (DMF)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Paul A. Robledo’s Motion for 

Reconsideration of this Court’s August 12, 2016, Order denying his appeal from an order 

issued by Magistrate Judge Fine. (Doc. 133).

 Reconsideration of a previous order is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “to be 

used sparingly.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citation omitted). The only ground available to support Plaintiff’s motion is the 

argument that the Court “committed clear error” in denying his appeal from the 

Magistrate Judge’s order. Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners, 179 F.3d 656, 665 

(9th Cir. 1999)).

Having considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that it did not commit clear 

error in denying his appeal, and thus reconsideration is not warranted. The Court relies on 

the reasoning set forth in support of the Order Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of. 

(Doc. 131). Plaintiff’s motion, while it expands upon the rationale behind Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 134 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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

appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s order,1fails to address how the Court committed clear 

error in denying Plaintiff’s appeal.

The medical records Plaintiff proffered with a time stamp of August 13, 2015, fail 

to establish on what date Defense Counsel obtained copies of Plaintiff’s medical records. 

Plaintiff has failed to cite to any authority to suggest that Defense Counsel is the 

appropriate target of Plaintiff’s efforts. And this Court is not an investigatory body and an 

investigation is not an appropriate remedy in this appeal. 

 To the extent that Plaintiff’s appeal seeks an order to produce certain evidence 

relating to when Defense Counsel came into possession of Plaintiff’s medical records, the 

Court finds that it is not relevant to the issues to be tried in this case. Finally, even 

accepting Plaintiff’s claims as true, these proceedings are not “tainted.” On May 17, 

2016, Plaintiff authorized the release of his medical records over the past ten years to 

Defendant. Defendant is now in possession of those records, and was recently ordered by 

the Magistrate Judge to disclose those records to Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment has been fully briefed, and will be addressed in due course. 

 In sum, Plaintiff has not established that the Court’s denial of his appeal from the 

Magistrate Judge’s order was clear error. Magistrate Judge Fine will adjudicate Plaintiff’s 

pending Motion to Produce Documents. (Doc. 132). This motion is outside the scope of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 133), and will not be addressed by the 

Court.

 For these reasons, 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

 

1

Plaintiff also entered into the record a copy of Defendant Nicole Taylor’s 

Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (First Set), which Plaintiff 

relied on in support of his appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s order.

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 134 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 133), of the 

Court’s August 12, 2016, Order is DENIED. 

Dated this 19th day of August, 2016.

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 134 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3