Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00922/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00922-4/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

05cv922

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY JOE DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUZIL RUAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-CV-922-L(NLS)

ORDER OVERRULING

OBJECTION AND AFFIRMING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECISION

[doc. #109]

On April 29, 2005, Bobby Joe Daniels ("plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed this action alleging violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently

pending in this action is defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The magistrate

judge issued a Report and Recommendation on November 6, 2006 with respect to the motion to

dismiss. Objections to the Report and Recommendation are due on December 4, 2006. 

On October 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for leave to depose two staff witnesses [doc.

#104]. In November 6, 2006, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s request on the basis that

discovery was premature because of the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 

Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Order denying his request for leave to depose. Having

carefully considered plaintiff’s arguments, the record in this case, and the magistrate judge’s

Order, the Court affirms the decisions of the magistrate judge and overrules plaintiff’s objections

for the reasons set forth below.

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 110 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 4
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 05cv922

1. Standard of Review

A party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge within ten

days after service of the order. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge's order will be

upheld unless it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);

Computer Economics, Inc., v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999). 

The "clearly erroneous" standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual determinations and

discretionary decisions, including orders imposing discovery sanctions. Maisonville v. F2 Am.,

Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990) (factual determinations made in connection with sanction

award are reviewable for clear error); Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d

236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive pretrial matters reviewable for

clear error under Rule 72(a)). Under this standard, "the district court can overturn the

magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that

a mistake has been made." Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th

Cir. 1997). Issues related to appointment of counsel order are deemed nondispositive, and thus

the magistrate judge's determination of such matters is entitled to deference unless it is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a)

The "contrary to law" standard applies to review of purely legal determinations by a

magistrate judge. See, e.g., Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992) ("the

phrase 'contrary to law' indicates plenary review as to matters of law."); Medical Imaging

Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 917 F.Supp. 717, 719 (S.D. Cal. 1996) (Brewster, J.)

("Section 636(b)(1) ... has been interpreted to provide for de novo review by the district court on

issues of law."); 12 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, FEDERAL

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3069 at 350 & 355 (2d ed. 1997). Accordingly, the district court

exercises its independent judgment with respect to a magistrate judge's legal conclusions. 

Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff'd 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994). 

2. Discussion

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to this discovery and he is being hampered in

prosecuting the case by not being permitted to depose staff members. Plaintiff fails to

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 110 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 4
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 05cv922

understand that the magistrate judge is not preventing plaintiff from litigating his action by

denying his motion as premature based on the procedural posture of the case. Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure provides that the parties may not seek discovery from any source before the

Court issues a scheduling order regulating discovery and all other pretrial proceedings. See

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d). Here, defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended

complaint must be decided prior to a scheduling order being issued. After determining the

merits of defendants’ motion, if any of plaintiff’s claims remain, and answer will be required and

the magistrate judge will issue a scheduling order and discovery will be permitted to commence. 

Until that time, discovery is premature and may not begin.

Although plaintiff is appearing without counsel, he is required to be aware of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules of this Court and to not file frivolous

objections which burden the court. Plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s Order denying

his request for leave to depose staff witnesses is wholly without merit and does not address the

legal and factual reasoning presented by the magistrate judge in her order. In objecting to the

magistrate judge’s order, plaintiff did not take into account that the order specifically noted that

discovery requests at this time are premature and do not foreclose discovery at a later time

when such requests might be timely and/or appropriate. 

Because the magistrate judge reviewed plaintiff’s request, the applicable law, and the

relevant facts as presented by plaintiff, the Court finds no error on the part of the magistrate

judge in denying plaintiff’s request for leave to depose two staff witnesses. Accordingly,

because the magistrate judge’s decision was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law,

plaintiff’s objection must be overruled.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 110 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 4
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 05cv922

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED overruling plaintiff’s objection to the

magistrate judge’s Order denying plaintiff’s motion to depose two staff witnesses.. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 27, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 110 Filed 11/27/06 Page 4 of 4