Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Brandon Meeks,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. Nunez; T. Scott,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13cv973-GPC-BGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 185) 

AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO 

REFILE HIS OBJECTION BY 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2016

I. BACKGROUND

On July 5, 2016, nunc pro tunc, June 30, 2016, the Court received a Notice and 

Request for Ruling by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 169.) In this motion, Plaintiff stated that he 

filed an objection on May 7, 2016 to an order of the Court. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff stated that 

this objection was never filed, and requested that it be filed on the docket. (Id. at 1-2.) 

On July 14, 2016, the Court acknowledged that Plaintiff’s objection was not reflected on 

the docket, and allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to refile it. (ECF No. 174.) 

On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed an objection to this Court’s Order (ECF No. 

174), stating that the “Court has circumvented addressing the fact that plaintiff’s 

objection dated 5/7/16 was in fact received by the Court and not filed in the docket nor 

returned to plaintiff as undeliverable.” (ECF No. 185.) Plaintiff further argues that, 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 190 Filed 09/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

because the Court “has not specifically denied receipt of plaintiff’s objection, therefore 

the order is misguided and clearly erroneous as to a refiling by plaintiff, this is based on 

the fact that legal mail sent to the court was in fact received.” (Id. at 2-3.)

The Court first notes that Plaintiff files this objection pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 46. This Federal Rule is applicable to objections made during the course 

of a trial. As a result, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s objection as a motion for 

reconsideration. 

II. RELEVANT LAW

The law of the case doctrine is a judicial invention designed to aid in the efficient 

operation of court affairs. Lockert v. United States Dept. of Labor, 867 F.2d 513, 518 

(9th Cir. 1989). Under the doctrine, a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an 

issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case. 

Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir. 1988), amended, 860 F.2d 357 

(9th Cir. 1988). For the doctrine to apply, the issue in question must have been “decided 

explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition.” Liberty Mutual Ins. 

Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982); accord Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 

880 F.2d 149, 157 (9th Cir. 1989).

A court may have discretion to reopen a previously resolved question under one or 

more of the following circumstances: (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an 

intervening change in the law has occurred; (3) the evidence on remand is substantially 

different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise 

result. Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993).

III. DISCUSSION

In this motion, Plaintiff requests an order (1) Directing the clerk to file plaintiff’s 

objection and Notice of Appeal dated 5/7/16 in the court docket (nunc pro tunc) (2) 

Corrective Action by the Court (3) Set the matter for hearing (4) Order the clerk and all 

responsible parties to show cause (5) Any other and further relief deemed just by the 

Court. (ECF No. 185 at 3.) Plaintiff offers no additional information not previously 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 190 Filed 09/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

before this Court when it issued its order on July 14, 2016. (ECF No. 174.) 

Notwithstanding, the Court will address each of Plaintiff’s requests in turn. 

A. Plaintiff’s Request for the Court to Direct the Clerk to File Plaintiff’s 

Objection and Notice of Appeal Dated 5/7/16

The Court once again acknowledges that Plaintiff’s objection dated 5/7/16 is not 

reflected on the docket. The Court is not in possession of any such objection. As a 

result, the Court cannot order something to be filed that it does not possess. The only 

remedy available to the Court is to allow Plaintiff to re-file the objection so that the Court 

can address the objection’s merits and rule accordingly. The Court offered such a 

remedy in its prior order, and will do so once more. If Plaintiff would like the Court to 

rule on his objection, he must re-file it by September 30, 2016. If Plaintiff does not have 

a copy of the objection he originally filed, he can re-draft his objection and file that with 

the Court. If Plaintiff files his objection by September 30, 2016, the Court will deem the 

objection timely and rule on the merits. If Plaintiff does not file the objection by 

September 30, 2016, the objection will be untimely and the Court will overrule it on that 

basis. 

B. Plaintiff’s Request for Corrective Action

The Court GRANTS the above outlined corrective action of allowing Plaintiff the 

opportunity to refile an objection four months after he says he filed it. Plaintiff must refile his objection by September 30, 2016.

C. Plaintiff’s Request for a Hearing

Plaintiff’s request for a hearing is DENIED. The Court has discretion to decide a 

motion without oral argument. Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

D. Plaintiff’s Request for an Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff requests this Court issue an Order to Show Cause to the clerk of Court. 

This request is DENIED. Plaintiff misunderstands the Order to Show Cause procedure. 

A court will issue an Order to Show Cause when a party is alleged to have violated a 

court order or requirement under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Here, the clerk of 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 190 Filed 09/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

Court is neither a party to this action, nor have they been shown to have violated any 

order by this Court. Moreover, Plaintiff has already been afforded a remedy for any 

prejudice he might have suffered as a result of his document not being filed: an extension. 

This is the second extension afforded Plaintiff. He will not be granted another. No other 

objections on this issue will be entertained. Plaintiff is ordered to file his objection 

by September 30, 2016. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff must re-file his objection by September 30, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 2, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 190 Filed 09/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4