Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00685/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00685-10/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. Background

Plaintiff Abdelkader Morceli (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 29, 2011. This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Meyers for violation of the Free Exercise Clause 

of the First Amendment and Equal Protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 

25.) On November 4, 2013, Defendant Meyers filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 44.)

On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order Defendant 

Meyers to provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of the transcript from Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant 

ABDELKADER MORCELI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

W. MEYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A BELATED 

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

DECEMBER 3, 2013 ORDER (ECF No. 50)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECEMBER 3, 2013 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

ORDER TO DEFENDANT MEYERS TO 

FURNISH COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 DEPOSITION OF 

PLAINTIFF AND ORDER DENYING REQUEST 

FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME (ECF No. 51)

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 52 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 5
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

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Plaintiff also requested a thirty-day extension of time 

following service of the deposition transcript to file his opposition to Defendant Meyers’ motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 45.) On November 20, 2013, Defendant Meyers filed a response to 

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion. (ECF No. 47.) 

On December 5, 2013, the Magistrate Judge found that the time for a reply had expired and 

deemed the motion submitted. Local Rule 230(l). The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request for 

an order requiring Defendant Meyers to provide Plaintiff with a complete, certified copy of Plaintiff’s 

deposition transcript. The Magistrate Judge also denied Plaintiff’s related request for an extension of 

time from the date of service of the transcript for Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment. Instead, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date 

of service of the order to file any opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 

48.)

On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply to his motion for a copy of the deposition 

transcript. The reply was dated November 27, 2013, and served by mail on November 29, 2013. 

(ECF No. 49.)

On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave of court to file a belated objection 

to the Magistrate Judge’s order of December 5, 2013. (ECF No. 50.) On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff 

also filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order of December 5, 2013. (ECF No. 51.) 

The Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 303(d). 

II. Discussion

A. Request to File Belated Objections

Plaintiff, who states he has minimal ability to speak and comprehend English, explains that due 

to a lockdown beginning on December 11, 2013, the inmate assisting him was unable to access the law 

library and conduct the necessary legal research to prepare objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order. 

(ECF No. 50.) Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s request to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

order shall be granted. No further action shall be necessary as the Clerk of the Court has filed 

Plaintiff’s objections concurrent with the instant request. 

///

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 52 Filed 03/19/14 Page 2 of 5
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

B. Objections/Reconsideration

The Court construes Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order as a request for 

reconsideration. 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.”). 

As noted, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order, issued on December 

5, 2013, which denied his request for an order directing Defendant Meyers to provide him with a copy 

of his deposition transcript and an extension of time following receipt of the transcript to file an 

opposition to Defendant Meyers’ motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff first claims error because the Magistrate Judge found that the time for Plaintiff to file 

a reply to the motion had expired and deemed the motion submitted. (ECF No. 48, p. 2; Local Rule 

230(l).) Plaintiff asserts that his reply, served by mail on November 29, 2013, was timely filed 

pursuant to the mailbox rule. Pursuant to the mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s pleading is deemed 

filed at the time he delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk. Douglas v. 

Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Although Plaintiff’s reply was timely filed pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, the Magistrate 

Judge did not err by finding that a reply had not been filed on the Court’s docket as of December 5, 

2013, or by issuing a ruling at that time. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), a reply is due not more than 

seven (7) days after the opposition has been electronically filed. Defendant Meyers filed an opposition 

on November 20, 2013. With the addition of three (3) days for mailing, Plaintiff’s reply was due on or 

before December 2, 2013. Local Rule 230(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Thus, finding no reply on the 

docket and signing an order on December 3, 2013, was not error. The Magistrate Judge could not 

have considered a reply that had not been received for filing until December 6, 2013, and had not been

entered on the Court’s docket until December 9, 2013. (ECF No. 49.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim of error appears to be that the Magistrate Judge failed to vacate 

the December 5, 2013 order and consider Plaintiff’s December 6, 2013 reply. Although the Magistrate 

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 52 Filed 03/19/14 Page 3 of 5
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

Judge did not vacate the December 5, 2013 order to expressly consider Plaintiff’s reply, the Court has 

reviewed the reply and finds nothing in that reply to warrant reversal of the Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive order. 

In the reply, Plaintiff asserted that he should be excused from his failure to request review of 

the transcript before the deposition was completed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1). The Court 

does not find a basis to excuse Plaintiff’s failure to request a review. First, Plaintiff has not set forth 

any basis to suggest that he made errors in his deposition testimony that required correction. Second, 

Plaintiff appears to believe that the request for review would have allowed him to both review and 

retain a copy of the deposition transcript free of charge. This is not the case. Rule 30(e)(1)

contemplates only a review of the transcript in order to make any changes in form or substance within 

thirty days and then returning the transcript and any changes to the court reporter. It does not allow 

for the retention of a copy of the transcript free of charge. 

In his reply, Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff does not require a 

copy of the deposition transcript because he may overcome summary judgment by submitting an 

affidavit or declaration. Plaintiff’s disagreement mirrors his current objection that the Magistrate 

Judge mistakenly believed Plaintiff could overcome Defendant’s summary judgment by affidavit or 

declaration. Plaintiff’s disagreement and objection lack merit. 

Although Plaintiff admits that he can file an affidavit or declaration in support of the evidence, 

he asserts that he cannot submit an affidavit or declaration in relation to his deposition without 

violating the “sham affidavit” rule. Plaintiff’s expressed concerns regarding a “sham affidavit” are 

unclear and unsupported. Plaintiff has been served with copies of those portions of the deposition 

transcript relied upon by Defendant Meyers to support summary judgment. (ECF No. 44-4.) Plaintiff 

may review the cited portions and submit a declaration to clarify, explain or otherwise address his 

deposition testimony in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), 

(2). Further, Plaintiff may rely on admissions, interrogatory answers, documents or other materials to 

oppose summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). 

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 52 Filed 03/19/14 Page 4 of 5
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

To the extent that Plaintiff intends to raise issues concerning the taking of the deposition itself 

or other perceived irregularities in the deposition process, the time for doing so has long since passed. 

Plaintiff’s deposition was completed in September 2013. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave of court to file a belated objection to the Magistrate Judge’s 

December 5, 2013 order is GRANTED. No further action is required on this request 

because Plaintiff’s objections were filed on January 2, 2014;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration by the district court of the Magistrate Judge’s 

December 3, 2013 order denying Plaintiff’s request for order to Defendant Meyers to 

furnish a copy of the transcript of September 23, 2013 deposition of Plaintiff is DENIED; 

and

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall be filed and 

served within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 52 Filed 03/19/14 Page 5 of 5