Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-38/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the 

second amended complaint filed November 11, 2011, against Defendants Munoz, Clausing, and Omos 

for excessive force in pepper spraying Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against 

Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, and Roberson for ordering that Plaintiff’s property be 

removed from his cell and that Plaintiff be placed back into a contaminated cell without means to 

decontaminate from the pepper spray in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants 

Morse and Paz for placing Plaintiff in the contaminated cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On November 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge partially granted Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the 

discovery order. The Magistrate Judge also imposed sanctions against Defendants for the failure to 

provide discovery. (ECF No. 248.) On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting 

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT COURT OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING

(ECF No. 276)

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 280 Filed 11/12/13 Page 1 of 3
2

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

clarification of the Magistrate Judge’s order. (ECF No. 250.) On September 25, 2013, the Magistrate 

Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for clarification. (ECF No. 272.)

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate 

Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s request for clarification. (ECF No. 276.) Defendants did not file a 

response. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

A party may seek reconsideration by the District Court of the rulings of the Magistrate Judge. 

Local Rule 303(c). The Magistrate Judge’s decision on non-dispositive pretrial issues is reviewed 

under the clearly erroneous standard. Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 

1991); see also Local Rule 303(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“The district judge in the case must . . . set 

aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”). 

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order, issued on September 25, 2013, 

which denied his request for clarification. Plaintiff had requested that the Magistrate Judge provide 

clarification regarding the November 21, 2012 order granting his motion to compel and imposing 

sanctions against Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff questioned whether the Magistrate Judge had 

implicitly ordered disclosure of a plan of operations. Plaintiff believed that the Magistrate Judge 

failed to issue a corresponding evidentiary sanction or compel disclosure despite a finding that 

Defendants failed to produce the requested document(s). (ECF No. 250.) The Magistrate Judge 

denied Plaintiff’s request for clarification and declined to order production of any plan of operations 

documents or to otherwise modify its November 21, 2012 order. 

Plaintiff now claims that the Magistrate Judge’s failure to issue a sanction or order production 

related to the plan of operations document is clearly erroneous and contrary to law because it renders 

the rules for discovery and sanctions meaningless. Plaintiff explains that his reason for requesting the 

plan of operations is “to establish that defendants deprived [him] of his basic necessities and to belie 

defendants[’] claims that they provided the necessities in compliance with prison policy.” (ECF No. 

276, p. 2.) 

The Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for clarification is not clearly erroneous 

and is not contrary to law. As noted by the Magistrate Judge in the denial, defendants’ failure to 

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 280 Filed 11/12/13 Page 2 of 3
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

produce the requested documents precludes the admission of such documents at trial. (ECF No. 272, 

p. 4.) In other words, defendants cannot introduce the plan of operations at trial, which is, in itself, an 

evidentiary sanction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. The inability to introduce documentary evidence of the plan 

of operations inherently limits any purported argument that defendants complied with the plan. Even

in the absence of such a document, Plaintiff is not precluded from offering testimony regarding the 

removal of property from his cell or the alleged denial of basic necessities. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration by the district court of the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s request for clarification is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 280 Filed 11/12/13 Page 3 of 3