Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Demetrius Antwan Wilson,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joseph M Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01613-PHX-JAT (DMF)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Demetrius Wilson’s December 19, 2016 

appeal from a pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. (Doc. 238). The Court 

now rules on the motion. 

I. Background

 For the purposes of this appeal, the Court will not recite the underlying facts of the 

case. Instead, it is sufficient to note that Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in 

this case on October 26, 2016. (Doc. 230). On October 27, Plaintiff filed a request for 

leave to amend his summary judgment motion. (Doc. 232). Defendants filed a motion to 

strike Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, arguing that it was untimely and improper 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 233). Magistrate Judge Fine granted 

Defendant’s motion to strike, finding that Plaintiff’s request violated the local rules of 

civil procedure because it did not clearly outline the changes Plaintiff sought to make. 

(Doc. 237). Plaintiff then filed this appeal. 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 239 Filed 12/27/16 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

II. Analysis 

 When a magistrate judge issues a pretrial order, this Court may review the order 

“where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law.” Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2012); Barten v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

No. CZV-12-0399-TUC-CKJ, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133569, at *10 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 

2014) (quoting Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 

1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)). The Court will overturn a Magistrate Judge’s decision only 

if it is the result of “clear error.” Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Under this standard of review, the Magistrate Judge’s 

decision is “not subject to de novo determination,” and the Court “may not simply 

substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San 

Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). In order to find clear error, the Court must 

have a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. 

Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001). 

 Plaintiff has shown no clear error here. For example, Plaintiff’s appeal claims that 

“[D]efendant(s) never filed such motion to strike.” (Doc. 238 at 1). This is an incorrect 

statement. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his 

summary judgment motion on November 14, 2016, and a copy of the motion to strike 

was mailed to Plaintiff on the same day. (Doc. 233 at 3). 

 The Court also notes that Plaintiff has not shown that he has been prejudiced by 

the order granting Defendants’ motion to strike. After a brief review of Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment and his proposed amended motion for summary judgment, this 

Court does not find that the two documents are significantly different. Moreover, Judge 

Fine’s order struck only Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend; it did not strike his initial 

motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff will still be entitled to a decision on that 

motion in due course.1

 

1

Plaintiff’s request for final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

(“Rule”) 54(c) is also denied. Rule 54(c) does not empower the Court to enter a final 

judgment, but rather defines what relief the Court may grant in a final judgment when 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 239 Filed 12/27/16 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

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal (Doc. 238) is DENIED, and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 237) is AFFIRMED. 

Dated this 27th day of December, 2016.

 

one is appropriate. 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 239 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 3