Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-39/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO THE ORDERS DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S EXTENSION REQUEST AND 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(Docs. 137, 142 & 152.)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ EXTENSION REQUEST 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY 

REQUESTS

(Docs. 167, 175 & 176.)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDERS DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO STAY AND 

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

AND PARTIALLY DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

(Docs. 175, 177, 178 & 182.) 

Luis Manuel Garces proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed several objections to several orders issued by the assigned 

magistrate judge, which the Court addresses here.

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 195 Filed 11/30/23 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

On April 26, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for an 

extension of time to file discovery motions. (Doc. 137.) On May 19, 2023, the assigned 

magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of Plaintiff’s motion 

for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 142.) On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to the Court in 

Support of Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge.” (Doc. 152.) Although Plaintiff does not 

cite to any specific order, Plaintiff appears to object to the assigned magistrate judge’s rulings 

regarding his motion for reconsideration and extension request. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff generally 

argues that the magistrate judge has ignored evidence submitted by Plaintiff and is biased against 

him in favor of Defendants. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff’s objections also include allegations related to 

his prior requests for injunctive relief. (See id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff’s previous requests for injunctive 

relief have been denied by separate order. (See Docs. 137, 146, 118, 147.) 

On July 28, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Defendants’ motion for a 

ten-day extension of time to serve interrogatory responses. (Doc. 167). The magistrate judge also 

denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to propound additional interrogatories and Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel interrogatory responses. (Id.) On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed lengthy objections 

to this order on the grounds that the magistrate judge erroneously denied Plaintiff’s discovery 

requests and prejudiced Plaintiff by granting Defendants’ extension of time request to respond to 

Plaintiff’s discovery. (Doc. 174.) On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed further objections. (Doc. 

176.) Plaintiff also requests that his case be transferred to another magistrate judge. (Id. at 7.) 

On September 11, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s request to 

stay and request for the appointment of counsel.1(Doc. 175.) On September 25, 2023, the 

magistrate judge issued an order denying in part Plaintiff’s motions to compel and/or to enforce 

discovery. (Doc. 177.) On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to this order. (Doc. 178.)

Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge has denied Plaintiff’s right to discovery by denying his 

discovery related motions. (See id.) On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed further objections to the 

magistrate judge’s order denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Doc. 182.)

1 The order denying Plaintiff’s request was issued in conjunction with findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s 

request for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. 175.) 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 195 Filed 11/30/23 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

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders 

issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the 

order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Upon review of the orders denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file discovery motions (Doc. 137), denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 142), granting Defendants’ request for an extension 

of time (Doc. 167), denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to propound additional interrogatories 

and motion to compel interrogatories (id.), denying Plaintiff’s request to stay and request for the 

appointment of counsel (Doc. 175), and partially denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 

177), the Court finds that the assigned magistrate judge correctly applied the applicable law. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 152, 174, 176, 178 & 

182) are overruled and the assigned magistrate judge’s orders (Docs. 137, 142, 167, 175 & 177) 

are affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2023 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 195 Filed 11/30/23 Page 3 of 3