Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214-10/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JONES, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DARREN “HAP” SWEENEY, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 04-CV-6214 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS,

WHICH IS CONSTRUED AS A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document #96)

BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Frederick Jones, Sr. On March 19, 2008,

Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to discovery. Plaintiff did not file an

opposition to this motion. On June 16, 2008, the Magistrate Judge granted Defendant’s motion

to compel. The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to produce documents in response to

Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents Set One (Request Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) and

Set Two or authorize release of these documents by his criminal attorney to Defendant's counsel. 

The Magistrate Judge also ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant’s

Interrogatories, including Plaintiff’s employment history (No. 1); dates of school attendance (No.

2); prior medical history (No. 5); information about damages (No. 6); identification of witnesses

(Nos. 7, 8 and 10); description of claims against Defendant and supporting documents (Nos. 11,

12 and 13); factual basis of claims (Nos. 15 and 16); identification of the occupant in the car he

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 106 Filed 08/21/08 Page 1 of 5
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

was driving at the time of the incident (No. 17); and description of any alcohol or drugs

(including medication) that Plaintiff used within 24 hours of the incident (No. 18). The

Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to provide the documents and information within 30 days of

the order.

On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order granting

Defendant’s motion to compel. Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party

to serve and file objections to a Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive order within ten days. In this

court, this type of objections are treated as a motion for reconsideration by the assigned District

Court Judge and should be captioned “Request for Reconsideration.” See Local Rule 72-303. 

While Plaintiff did not file a request for reconsideration, in the interests of justice, the court will

review Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 72-303.

On July 30, 2008, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the June 16, 2008 order. Because Plaintiff filed objections to this order, which the court

must address, the court will delay ruling on Defendant’s motion at this time.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 th

(D.C.Cir. 1987). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78- th

230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

the motion.” 

The court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a). “A

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 106 Filed 08/21/08 Page 2 of 5
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

finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court

on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Anderson v.

Equifax Info. Services LLC, 2007 WL 2412249, at *1 (D.Or. 2007) (“Though Section

636(b)(1)(A) has been interpreted to permit de novo review of the legal findings of a magistrate

judge, magistrate judges are given broad discretion on discovery matters and should not be

overruled absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”).

DISCUSSION

Preliminarily, the court notes that Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motion to compel,

and Plaintiff did not make the arguments found in his objections to the Magistrate Judge. 

Motions for reconsideration and objections to a Magistrate Judge’s order are not the place for a

party to make a new argument and raise facts not addressed in his original brief. See

Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9 Cir. 2001); Rosenfeld v. United States th

Dep't of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 811 (9 Cir.1995); Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood th

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Because Plaintiff did not make any of the th

contentions found in the objections to the Magistrate Judge and these contentions could have

been raised before the Magistrate Judge ruled on the motion to compel, the objections do not

provide a basis for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s discovery order.

Regardless, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order granting Defendant’s motion

to compel was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s primary argument in the

objections is that it is the court’s fault that Plaintiff cannot respond better to discovery because

the court did not appoint an attorney to represent Plaintiff. There is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Title 28

U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a

litigant who is proceeding is forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the

courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist.

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 106 Filed 08/21/08 Page 3 of 5
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 4

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9 Cir.1997) th

withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9 Cir.1998) (en banc); th

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir.1986). Because the law at issue in this case th

is settled and this case concerns a factual dispute, the court does not find exceptional

circumstances. Plaintiff is correct that he would be better served by the assistance of counsel,

and the court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s desire for counsel. However, the Ninth Circuit

has recognized that “any pro se litigant certainly would be better served with the assistance of

counsel,” and as such the Plaintiff must “show that because of the complexity of the claims he

was unable to articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Plaintiff has made no such

showing. The information Defendant seeks is either in Plaintiff’s knowledge or Plaintiff can

obtain this evidence by writing letters and signing releases. While counsel would certainly assist

in such an endeavor, it is the same situation faced by any pro se litigant. 

The court recognizes that Plaintiff is in custody, making it difficult for him to obtain

some information. However, a review of the motion to compel and exhibits attached to the

objections reveals that Defendant’s counsel has offered to obtain some of the information

himself, such as school records and the records in Plaintiff’s criminal counsel’s files. However,

Defendant’s counsel cannot obtain this private information about Plaintiff without waivers from

Plaintiff to third parties. Plaintiff must respond to the releases and contact the individuals and

entities holding this information before Defendant can obtain it. The Magistrate Judge’s order

addressed the fact that other individuals and entities may have the information Defendant seeks

by ordering Plaintiff to provide documents or sign releases. Thus, the fact Plaintiff does not

have certain documents in his current possession is not an impossible obstacle. 

The information sought in the interrogatories is simple and straightforward. Plaintiff

either knows the answers, or he does not know the answers. To the extent Plaintiff cannot truly

provide any more information or further response to the interrogatories, Plaintiff may respond to

the interrogatories that he has no more information to provide. Plaintiff is not required to “make

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 106 Filed 08/21/08 Page 4 of 5
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 5

up” information to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order. Plaintiff will simply be bound to

his responses in the interrogatories in further proceedings and trial. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro.

37(b)(2)(A); Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37(c)(1).

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 30, 2008 objections, which have been construed as a motion for

reconsideration by the District Court Judge, are DENIED.

2. Within twenty days of this order’s date of service, Plaintiff SHALL:

a. Produce the documents requested in Defendant's Request for Production of

Documents Set One (Request Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) and Set Two or

authorize release of these documents by Defendant’s criminal counsel.

b. Provide further responses to Defendant's Interrogatories Numbers 1, 2, 5,

6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 15, 16, 17 and 18) or authorize release of this

information from the appropriate entity or individual.

3. Within thirty days of this order’s date of service, Defendant SHALL supplement

his July 30, 2008 motion to dismiss with any additional information. 

4. Plaintiff is again warned that if he fails to provide these documents, responses, or

releases within twenty days, the court will grant Defendant’s pending motion for

terminating sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 106 Filed 08/21/08 Page 5 of 5