Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00787/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00787-3/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK OLAF FONSECA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv787-LAB (BLM)

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL

vs. PLEADING

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff Roderick Fonseca's complaint, and Fonseca

moved for a preliminary injunction. Both motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara

Major for report and recommendation. Judge Major received briefing, and on June 10 issued

her report and recommendation. The Court later rejected it and issued its own ruling, granting

the motion to dismiss and denying the motion for preliminary injunction. Fonseca then took

an appeal, which is now pending.

It appears Fonseca also submitted what he intended to be a supplemental brief either

in support of his opposition to the motion to dismiss or in support of his motion for preliminary

injunction. He dated this document June 10, 2015. Because of administrative delay, that

document was not docketed until after the Court had dismissed the complaint and Fonseca

had taken an appeal.

- 1 - 14cv787

Case 3:14-cv-00787-LAB-BLM Document 32 Filed 08/14/15 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

Assuming Fonseca intended this document as supplemental briefing on the motion

to dismiss, he submitted it far too late. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987)

(“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”) If he

intended it as a reply brief on the motion for preliminary injunction, he was not given leave

to file such a document. (See Docket no. 18 (Judge Major's Scheduling Order on Motion for

Preliminary Injunction).) 

These are not merely minor technical slip-ups; Fonseca's tardy or unauthorized filing

prevented Judge Major from taking his supplemental document into account when drafting

and issuing her report and recommendation. Nor can it have been intended as objections to

the report and recommendation, because Fonseca had not even seen the report and

recommendation when he wrote the document. Because this case is on appeal, the Court

lacks jurisdiction to reverse its decision and so cannot construe it as a motion for

reconsideration of the Court's ruling.

The motion does, however, request that defense counsel be admonished or

disciplined for making false representations to the Court. The notice of appeal deprives the

Court only of jurisdiction over the issues appealed, see Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189

(9th Cir. 1997), so it appears the Court retains jurisdiction over attorney discipline. That being

said, the document's claims of unethical or unprofessional conduct are groundless. The

supposedly perjured testimony Fonseca points to merely embodies a dispute of law about

whether fish is or is not counted as meat for purposes of the prison kosher diet. Even if the

record supported Fonseca's charges of mendacity, which it does not, the witness' opinion on

the legal status of fish was immaterial. Finally, even if the document had been docketed in

time, it would have changed nothing. The Court considered and rejected Fonseca's argument

about fish in the prison kosher diet, and nothing in the supplemental document would change

that.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 14cv787

Case 3:14-cv-00787-LAB-BLM Document 32 Filed 08/14/15 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

In short, for whatever purpose the supplemental document was offered, it is

unpersuasive. Fonseca's request that the witness and defense counsel be disciplined or

admonished is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv787

Case 3:14-cv-00787-LAB-BLM Document 32 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 3