Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02195/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02195-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California 1

Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DEJESUS RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-02195 FCD KJN PS

vs.

UNKNOWN-NAMED DISCIPLINARY

HEARINGS AGENT A.K.A. “SERGEANT

SIMMONS,” et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Presently before this court are a variety of motions and documents filed by

plaintiff. A hearing was held before the undersigned on August 5, 2010. Plaintiff Jose DeJesus 1

Rodriguez, proceeding without counsel, appeared on his own behalf, and attorney Jason R.

Morrish appeared on behalf of defendants Steve Moore, Sheriff of San Joaquin County, and

Jeffrey Simmons. After careful consideration of the documents filed in this action, any argument

presented at the hearing on August 5, 2010 and for the reasons discussed, plaintiff’s filings and

requests for relief will be denied as set forth below.

//// 

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 8
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

 The court will issue the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order by separate ruling. 2

 Plaintiff also filed a document on March 25, 2010, entitled in part “Motion for 3

Reconsideration,” although that filing, as discussed below, focused on seeking summary

adjudication. (Dkt. No. 41.) 

 The undersigned offers the following information regarding a dismissal without 4

prejudice. Plaintiff is referred to the Office of Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of

California, which can provide a document entitled “Pro Se Package, A Simple Guide to Filing

Civil Action” and can direct plaintiff to copy of the Local Rules. Plaintiff may also consider

visiting the Sacramento County Public Law Library, which might be able to provide useful

information and access to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jose DeJesus Rodriguez, a pro se litigant, is generally complaining in this

lawsuit of his treatment by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s office while incarcerated at the San

Joaquin County Jail. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction in this action on

December 29, 2009. (Dkt. No. 16.) The undersigned recommended denial of the motion for

preliminary injunction in an order dated March 9, 2010. (Dkt. No. 36.) Those findings were

adopted by District Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on April 6, 2010. (Dkt. No. 43.) 

Plaintiff filed nine documents with the clerk’s office since the issuance of the

findings and recommendations, all containing statements in the caption that they are to be heard

on August 5, 2010, the date of the court-ordered status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this

action. On July 22, 2010, defendants Steve Moore, Sheriff of San Joaquin County, and Jeffery

2

Simmons (collectively “defendants”) filed a consolidated opposition to the plaintiff’s filings. 

(Dkt. No. 55.) The court will, in this instance, address each of plaintiff’s filings in turn. 

DISCUSSION

Docket Nos. 38, 41: Motions for Reconsideration

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 16, 2010. (Dkt. No. 38.) 3

Plaintiff appears to be seeking reconsideration of the court’s order “only” denying defendants’

motion to dismiss “without prejudice.” 

4

In the usual case, a party seeking reconsideration of an order has the burden of

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 8
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

3

setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which

reconsideration is sought, including “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.” Local Rule 230(j)(3), (4).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, however, seeks relief from an order that

was favorable to him. Plaintiff’s complaint about this court’s order denying defendant’s motion

to dismiss without prejudice is moot and will be denied. Defendants have now answered the

complaint, and no further motions to dismiss are pending. Nor has plaintiff presented any basis

for reconsideration of the court’s order denying dismissal, and therefore plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration is denied. 

Docket Nos. 39, 41: Memorandum of Law re Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for

Summary Adjudication re Affirmative Defenses

On March 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Memorandum of Law in

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

and For Summary Adjudication re Defendants’ Defective ‘Eighteenth Affirmative Defense.’”

(Dkt. No. 39.) Plaintiff complains of defendants’ 18th affirmative defense in their answer which

generally asserts governmental immunity from the allegations of the complaint. (Dkt. No. 39 at

2.) Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication “to completely dispose of this affirmative defense,”

contending, among other things, that this eighteenth affirmative defense is overly broad, legally

frivolous and meritless. (Dkt. No. 39 at 4.) 

On March 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a document nearly identical to Docket No. 39,

except that plaintiff is challenging defendants’ nineteenth affirmative defense instead of their

eighteenth affirmative defense. (Dkt. No. 41. ) In this filing, plaintiff claims that defendants’

invocation of the qualified immunity afforded public officials under the Eleventh Amendment to

the United States Constitution is unwarranted. Plaintiff contends without evidentiary support

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 3 of 8
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

4

that because defendants are a local government entity rather than an arm of the state that they are

not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Dkt. No. 41 at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s requests for summary adjudication are premature and procedurally

defective. Plaintiff has not noticed these motions for hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(b). 

Moreover, plaintiff has not filed Statements of Undisputed Facts as required by Local Rule

260(a). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally

construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, defendants

point out that the parties have not yet conducted discovery, and the court questions without

herein deciding whether plaintiff would be able to support a procedurally proper motion for

summary adjudication at this early stage of the action. (Dkt. No. 55 at 4.) For the foregoing

reasons, plaintiff’s motions for summary adjudication are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff

may, at the appropriate time, with the proper procedures and with the necessary evidence and/or

legal support, seek further summary adjudication from this court. 

Docket Nos. 40, 42: Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice on March 22, 2010, which he states was

filed concurrently with his motion for reconsideration of the ruling on defendants’ motion to

dismiss and summary adjudication regarding defendants’ allegedly defective eighteenth

affirmative defense. Plaintiff seeks an order taking judicial notice that California Government

Code section 820.4 “exists.” (Dkt. No. 40 at 1.) On March 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a request for

judicial notice for an order recognizing “that the 11th Amendment exists.” (Dkt. No. 42.) 

It is not necessary for plaintiff to file a separate request for judicial notice

regarding a particular statute in support of his position. Reference to any statutes, law or other

authority should be included in the motion and/or memorandum of points and authorities that

seek affirmative relief. In fact, plaintiff cites to these laws within his memorandum of authorities

in support of his requests for relief. See Dkt. Nos. 39, 41. Hence, these requests for judicial

notice are unnecessary and are denied as moot. 

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Docket No. 44: Motion for Summary Judgment

On April 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a document entitled “plaintiff’s memorandum of

law in support of motion for summary judgment re defendant Steve Moore’s defective theory of

‘respondeat superior.’” Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to summary judgment because there is

“no affirmative defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for respondeat superior against defendant

Steve Moore, the Sheriff of San Joaquin County . . . as a matter of law.” (Dkt. No. 44 at 1.) 

Plaintiff also states that there is “no merit to Defendant Steve Moore’s defective ‘respondeat

superior’ theory of liability (or non-liability).” (Dkt. No. 44 at 6.)

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective and fails to comply with the specific

rules applicable to motions for summary judgment. See Local Rule 260 (providing, inter alia,

that a motion for summary judgment be accompanied by a statement of undisputed facts); Local

Rule 230(b) (requiring notice of a specific motion to the opposing party). Plaintiff’s

memorandum of law in support of a motion for summary judgment is an insufficient vehicle by

which to seek summary judgment. Moreover, plaintiff needs to address the merits of his case

specifically in conjunction with the applicable law. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for summary

judgment will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may, at the appropriate time, with the

proper procedures and with the necessary evidence and/or legal support, seek further summary

judgment or adjudication from this court. 

Docket Nos. 50, 51, 53: Motion for Relief From Order

On June 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a document entitled “notice of motion for relief

from order, default judgment, or entry of default: and; plaintiff’s opposition or belated rebuttal to

magistrate judge’s recommendations re plaintiff’s preliminary injunction.” (Dkt. No. 50.) 

Plaintiff again stated that the hearing date and time for this motion would be August 5, 2010, the

date of the status conference in this action. Plaintiff sought a variety of relief that appears to

some degree misplaced, such as an order to “vacate the default of plaintiff and set aside the

judgment.” More precisely, plaintiff seeks permission to file late “objections” to the magistrate

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 5 of 8
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

6

judge’s findings and recommendations entered on March 9, 2010. (Dkt. No. 50 at 1.) Plaintiff

moves for an extended filing deadline based on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

and excusable neglect,” and on the substantive ground that the findings and recommendations are

clearly erroneous and contrary to law. (Dkt. No. 50 at 1-2.) 

First, plaintiff’s request for relief from default is unnecessary because this event

has not occurred. Second, it appears plaintiff is seeking belated relief from the court’s order

denying his request for a preliminary injunction. However, the deadline for objecting to the

undersigned’s findings and recommendations expired on March 29, 2010. (Dkt. No. 36.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) authorizes extension of an expired

deadline under the following circumstances: “When an act may or must be done within a

specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time

has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”

Plaintiff fails to explain how he is entitled to relief for excusable neglect or the

other referenced grounds. Although plaintiff may believe he has a meritorious claim or defense

to the order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, there is no explanation whatsoever

as to why plaintiff’s objections were filed nearly two months later, rather than within the twenty

days required by the court’s order. See also Local Rule 303(b); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72. The

findings and recommendations regarding plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction issued on

March 9, 2010. (Dkt. No. 36.) These findings and recommendations clearly set forth plaintiff’s

objection obligations and the accompanying timeframe for filing of objections. Plaintiff provides

no explanation for his self-styled “belated rebuttal” filed in June. “A litigant may not sleep on

his rights and decide, well after the deadline to challenge the order in any way, to raise a belated

challenge to a court order.” Florence v. Stanback, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1121 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 

Particularly where a plaintiff was, as here, specifically advised of the objection deadline, relief

based upon mistake or inadvertence is inappropriate. THK America, Inc. v. NSK Ltd., 157

F.R.D. 651, 654 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (“NSK’s failure to comply with the relevant rules cannot be

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 6 of 8
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

7

deemed inadvertent or an oversight. [The] Magistrate Judge [] has routinely included a caveat in

his orders that objections to his orders must be filed within ten days . . . .”). 

Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance with Local and Procedural Rules

The court is concerned by plaintiff’s repeated filings, which are frequently filed

without reference to or affiliation with a substantively supported motion. The court has already

admonished plaintiff not to file unnecessary requests for judicial notice. (Dkt. No. 36.) In light

of plaintiff’s latest round of filings, the court reminds plaintiff that Local Rule 183, governing

persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and Local Rules may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or other

appropriate sanction. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may

be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

within the inherent power of the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.

1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se

litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in

their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is again cautioned that

future and continued noncompliance with the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

may result in adverse consequences. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are denied (Dkt. Nos. 38, 41);

2. Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are denied as moot (Dkt. Nos. 40, 42); 

3. Plaintiff’s requests for summary adjudication are denied without prejudice

(Dkt. Nos. 39, 41);

4. Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment is denied without prejudice (Dkt. No.

44);

5. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from order, default judgment or entry of default is

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

denied (Dkt. No. 50); and

6. Plaintiff’s future filings shall comply with the Local Rules and Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Failure to comply with these rules may subject plaintiff to sanctions,

including but not limited to monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: August 5, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02195-KJN Document 57 Filed 08/06/10 Page 8 of 8