Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03012-36/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HAVILAND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:09-cv-3012 RCJ P

ORDER

On September 3, 2015, plaintiff filed a request styled, “Request for Change to the . . . 

Magistrate Judge’s Pretrial Order.” (ECF No. 201.) Plaintiff’s request describes the magistrate 

judge’s August 19, 2015 order as a “pretrial order,” allegedly addressing plaintiff’s pretrial 

statement. Plaintiff contends that certain declarations must be admitted into evidence at his trial, 

and challenges the denial of his request for judicial notice. Plaintiff’s request was signed by him 

on August 28, 2015. 

However, the August 19, 2015 order was not a “pretrial order,” as contemplated by Rule 

16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Local Rule 283. Indeed, the order did not 

address the issue of exhibits at plaintiff’s trial. Plaintiff’s requested exhibits will be included in 

the court’s pretrial order, and the parties are provided a period of time in which to object to the 

pretrial order. Because the August 19, 2015 order was not the pretrial order, the undersigned 

construes plaintiff’s motion as a request for reconsideration of the order. Under the mailbox rule, 

1

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 205 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 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

plaintiff’s motion was timely-filed because he signed the request on August 28, 2015, within the 

fourteen day deadline. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he Houston

mailbox rule applies to § 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners.”), citing Houston v. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988). 

The magistrate judge’s order, signed August 19, 2015, denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen 

discovery, and his requests for subpoena duces tecum, examination or expert witness, and judicial 

notice. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the file, the court finds that it does not 

appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the 

magistrate judge signed August 19, 2015 (ECF No. 201), is affirmed. 

/mitc3012.rec

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2015.

______________________________ 

ROBERT C. JONES

Case 2:09-cv-03012-RCJ Document 205 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2