Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00698/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00698-4/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

17cv698-CAB-JMA

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

RUBEN GIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv698-CAB-JMA

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE RULINGS 

[Doc. No. 121]

On September 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge Rulings 

set forth in Judge Adler’s order issued on August 31, 2018, Docket No. 116. [Doc. No. 

121.] For the reasons set forth below, the Objections are DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Magistrate judges’ rulings on nondispositive motions may be set aside or modified 

by the district court only if found to be “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 

In the subject discovery motions [Doc. Nos. 101 and 102], Plaintiff makes vague 

requests such as asking the court to “enforce judicial review of prison officials actions” 

and taking “a deep scope in this case since the case involves a lot of wrongs by prison 

officials.” [Doc. No. 102 at 2.] However, Plaintiff did not specify what discovery 

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 122 Filed 09/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv698-CAB-JMA

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

requests he sent to Defendants, what responses they gave, and why he objected to those 

responses. As Magistrate Judge Adler pointed out, it is “not clear to the Court what 

documents are at issue . . . [and] what privilege has been asserted.” Thus, Magistrate 

Judge Adler’s denial of the request for privileged documents, and denial of the request 

for an investigator to obtain such documents, was reasonable and certainly not “clearly 

erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

Similarly, in Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery [Doc. No. 111], Plaintiff 

does not set forth what specific discovery he seeks or why he did not seek it prior to the 

discovery cutoff. In addition, the discovery he seeks regarding the CDCR staff is not 

relevant to his complaint, which concerns his housing placement while at Donovan. 

Again, Magistrate Judge Adler’s Judge Adler’s denial of the request for additional 

discovery was reasonable and certainly not “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 

U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions [Doc. NO. 109] concerned what he 

believes to be retaliatory conduct by staff at CDCR. However, as noted by Magistrate 

Judge Adler, this alleged conduct does not fall within the scope of his complaint, which 

concerns his housing placement while at Donavan. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Adler’s 

denial of the motion for sanctions was reasonable and certainly not “clearly erroneous” or 

“contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Objections are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00698-CAB-JMA Document 122 Filed 09/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2