Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02184/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02184-5/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

16CV2184 WQH (BGS)

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

CHRISTOPHER M. MENDOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE #1, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV2184 WQH (BGS)

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

[ECF 41, 71, 87, 92, 96, 103, 105, 107, 

112, 116, 118, 120, 122, 126, 130, 134, 

136, 139]

This order addresses numerous pending motions filed by Plaintiff Christopher M. 

Mendoza.1 Although many are challenging to decipher, the Court has grouped them into 

four categories discussed below: (1) requests for sanctions; (2) requests for discovery; (3) 

requests to amend the scheduling order; and (4) requests for a variety of conferences. For 

the reasons set forth below, they are all DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The Court issued a Scheduling Order in this case on September 29, 2017. (ECF 

19.) The Order noted that a Case Management Conference was not required, authorized 

the deposition of Plaintiff, and set the schedule for the case. (Id.) The Order did include 

 

1 The Court will be issuing a Report and Recommendation to the assigned district judge 

addressing the pending dispositive motions. 

Case 3:16-cv-02184-WQH-BGS Document 152 Filed 02/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16CV2184 WQH (BGS)

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

direction to the parties to meet regarding a joint discovery plan and file that plan with the 

Court, but it also set out all the deadlines that would apply to the case, including 

completion of fact discovery by January 8, 2018 and the filing of any pretrial motions by 

May 7, 2018. (Id.) A Rule 26(f) conference was not required in this case. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(f)(1).

Although Plaintiff speculates otherwise, Deputy Ancho’s counsel explained in 

detail her efforts to reach Plaintiff in preparation of the plan. (ECF 20.) Plaintiff and 

Deputy Ancho ultimately filed separate discovery plans due to their inability to get in 

touch with each other. (Id.; ECF 26.) Neither party requested modification of the 

Court’s Scheduling Order in those submissions. (Id.) 

On May 7, 2018, the deadline to file pretrial motions, Deputy Ancho filed a 

Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF 34.) The Court issued a Klingele/Rand Notice to 

Plaintiff and set the briefing schedule on the motion. (ECF 34) Plaintiff filed his own 

Motion for Summary Judgment on May 16, 2018.2 (ECF 47.) In conjunction with his 

Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff also filed numerous requests related to 

discovery. As explained below, this was the beginning of an onslaught of filings that 

would not stop until Plaintiff completely abandoned this case.

DISCUSSION

Given the volume of Plaintiff’s filings, the Court has grouped them below and 

addresses them by category based on the Court’s best assessment what he is seeking. 

Some of them appear in multiple categories because a filing appears to raise multiple 

issues. 

I. Sanctions

The Court addresses one overarching issue at the outset. The Court is not 

persuaded that Plaintiff’s inability to communicate with counsel for Deputy Ancho 

 

2 The filing was received on May 16, 2018, but dated May 13, 2018, after the deadline to 

file pretrial motions. 

Case 3:16-cv-02184-WQH-BGS Document 152 Filed 02/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16CV2184 WQH (BGS)

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

warrants sanctioning Deputy Ancho’s counsel or an award of any other relief to Plaintiff. 

(ECF 92, 96, 103, 107, 112.) Accordingly, those requests are DENIED. Additionally, as 

relevant to the other issues addressed below, it also does not justify Plaintiff’s delays in 

raising any of these issues. Plaintiff has relentlessly complained about counsel not 

getting in touch with him about preparation of a joint discovery plan early in this case. 

Once the parties submitted their plans separately and no modification of the Scheduling 

Order was warranted, there was no further need to meet regarding that plan. Plaintiff has 

demonstrated his ability to draft and mail documents, a course he could have followed in 

serving discovery on Deputy Ancho. That counsel for Deputy Ancho was difficult to 

reach via phone does not justify Plaintiff ignoring this case for months during fact 

discovery and then belatedly blaming Deputy Ancho’s counsel for his lack of diligence. 

II. Discovery Related Filings

Plaintiff has sought to compel discovery or otherwise raised discovery issues 

through various filings.3 (ECF 41, 71, 87, 103, 107, 112, 116, 130, 136.) Plaintiff has 

not established that any of the discovery requests were served on Deputy Ancho during 

the fact discovery period. The requests are denied on that basis. Even if the Court 

assumes Plaintiff did timely serve the requests on Deputy Ancho, Plaintiff did not timely 

raise the lack of response or objection by Deputy Ancho, with the Court. As noted 

above, (see I.), the communication difficulties between Plaintiff and counsel for Deputy 

Ancho do not justify Plaintiff’s extensive delay. Fact discovery closed on January 8, 

2018 and Plaintiff’s earliest attempts to obtain relief from the Court related to discovery 

were filed five months later in May 2018. All the requests that followed in later months 

were even more untimely. The requests are also denied on this basis. Additionally, the 

Court has set numerous conferences to address this case, including to address these 

requests. Plaintiff has failed to appear numerous times and has also failed to justify his 

 

3 Some of his requests have already been addressed by prior Court orders. The Court 

only addresses those that are currently pending in this Order. 

Case 3:16-cv-02184-WQH-BGS Document 152 Filed 02/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16CV2184 WQH (BGS)

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

failure to appear. In addition to the reasons set forth above, the Court finds he has 

waived these issues by failing to appear and address them numerous times. These 

requests are DENIED. 

III. Requests to Amend the Scheduling Order

Plaintiff has submitted numerous filings that the Court construes as requests to 

amend the Court’s Scheduling Order. (ECF 103, 105, 107, 120, 134, 139.) These 

requests commenced in October 2018, seemingly in an attempt to reopen discovery, but 

fact discovery had closed more than eight months prior. The filings do not justify

essentially restarting this case more than two years after it was commenced and months 

after the close of discovery and the filing and briefing of dispositive motions. The 

requests are denied on this basis. Additionally, the Court has set numerous status 

conferences in this case to attempt to efficiently address these requests and others. 

Plaintiff has failed to appear for the conferences and failed to justify his failure to appear. 

Accordingly, in addition to the reasons for denial set forth above, the Court also finds 

Plaintiff has waived these issues by abandoning the case and denies them on this basis as 

well. These requests are DENIED.

IV. Requests for Conferences

Plaintiff has submitted a variety of filings that in some form or another seem to 

request some sort of conference before the Court. (ECF 103, 105, 118, 122, 126.) The 

Court has set numerous conferences in this case and Plaintiff has failed to appear for 

them. Accordingly, these requests are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2019

Case 3:16-cv-02184-WQH-BGS Document 152 Filed 02/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4