Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MONA S. MURILLO, Case No.: 25-cv-0574-BJC-VET CDCR # P43503, 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE’S 14 ORDER PURSUANT TO v. 15 FED. R. CIV. P. 72(A) JONATHAN P. COTA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 [ECF No. 47] 18 19 20 On January 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge Valerie Torres issued an order denying 21 Plaintiff’s following motions: (i) a Court Order “Ordering CDCR/RJD to Remove the 22 Court IFP Order” (“IFP-Related Motion”); (ii) “Permission and a Standing Order That 23 Medical or Mental Health Records Be Filed Confidential” (“Medical Records Motion”); 24 (iii) “a Discovery Schedule for TRO Motion and Complaint” (“Discovery Motion”); and 25 (iv) “Clerk Issued Subpoenas and Service by the Court’s Clerk” (“Subpoena Motion”) 26 (collectively, the “Motions”). See ECF Nos. 13, 16, 36, 39. On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff 27 filed a motion requesting a review of Judge Torres’ order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 28 Procedure 72(a). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 The Court previously set forth the relevant factual background. See ECF No. 65. 3 For ease of reference, the Court briefly summarizes the pertinent facts below. 4 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint pursuant 5 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1-2. On July 1, 2025, the Court screened the 6 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). ECF No. 9. The Court 7 dismissed all claims against all Defendants for failure to state a claim, with the exception 8 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims 9 against Defendants CDCR, Moeckly, Lewis, Bracamonte, Contrell, Cowart and Does 1 10, 10 the First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Lewis, Arroyo, Cota, Carrillo, 11 Amaya, Alexander and Williamson, and the Eighth Amendment denial of medical care 12 claims against Defendants Does 1-10. Id. at 9–24. Plaintiff was given the option of 13 amending her complaint or proceeding only with those claims against the aforementioned 14 Defendants. Id. at 26. On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that she wishes to 15 proceed only with the claims that survived screening and has identified several of the Doe 16 Defendants by name. ECF No. 10. 17 On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed the IFP-Related Motion. ECF No. 13. On 18 September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Medical Records Motion. ECF No. 16. On 19 November 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Discovery Motion. ECF No. 36. On January 7, 2026, 20 Plaintiff filed the Subpoena Motion. ECF No. 39. On January 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge 21 Valerie Torres denied each of these motions. ECF No. 40. Thereafter, on February 2, 22 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking review of Judge Torres's order pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). ECF No. 47. 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Under Rule 72(a), after a magistrate judge issues a non-dispositive pretrial order, a 26 party has fourteen days to object to the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Upon review, “[a] 27 district judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of 28 the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this 2 subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly 3 erroneous or contrary to law.”); Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 4 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The district court shall defer to the magistrate's orders unless they are 5 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “[A] magistrate's order is ‘clearly erroneous’ if, 6 after considering all of the evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm 7 conviction that a mistake has been committed, and an order is ‘contrary to law’ when it 8 fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Yent v. Baca, 9 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2002). Noteably, “the reviewing district 10 judge may not supplant his or her own judgment in place of the deciding magistrate judge.” 11 La Jolla Spa MD, Inc. v. Avidas Pharms., LLC, 2019 WL 5088559, ay *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12 10, 2019); (citing Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiff raises several arguments. The Court addresses each in turn and concludes 15 that Judge Torres's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 16 A. Assignment of the Magistrate Judge 17 Plaintiff first argues that Judge Torres lacked the authority to issue the January 14, 18 2026, Order. ECF No. 47 at 1. In support, Plaintiff references a separate action that she 19 previously filed in this Court, Murillo v. Via Path/GTL Technologies, No. 25-CV-823 JLS 20 (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2026). Plaintiff asserts that “[b]ecause the Hon. Valerie E. 21 Torres is not the assigned magistrate judge on case no. 25-cv-0083, her order striking [a] 22 motion from [the] court docket (25-cv-00823) was in excess of her power and [an] abuse 23 of discretion.” Id. 24 Plaintiff's argument is based on a misunderstanding of the record. Judge Torres is, 25 and always has been, the assigned magistrate judge in the present action. See ECF No. 1. 26 The January 14, 2026, Order addressed only Plaintiff's motions filed in this case— 27 specifically ECF Nos. 13, 16, 36, and 39. Nothing in that Order concerned, affected, or 28 purported to adjudicate any matter in Case No. 25-cv-00823. The Court therefore rejects 1 Plaintiff's contention that Judge Torres exceeded her authority. 2 B. Request for Subpoenas 3 In the Subpoena Motion, Plaintiff requested that the Court Clerk issue subpoenas to 4 various third parties seeking the production of documents. ECF No. 39. Judge Torres 5 denied Plaintiff’s request, explaining that as of the date of the Order, at least 9 of the 29 6 named Defendants have not been served and no Defendant had filed a response to the 7 Complaint. ECF No. 40 at 5. Plaintiff objects, arguing that “Plaintiff can at any time, even 8 prior to discovery being officially open request signed blank subpoenas from the court 9 clerk, to prepare them and the required motion for the U.S. Marshal service of subpoenas.” 10 ECF No. 47 at 2. 11 Plaintiff is mistaken. Under Rule 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery from 12 any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),” absent an 13 applicable exception. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Notably “[t]he Ninth Circuit has held that 14 when a defendant's identity is unknown at the time the complaint is filed, a court may grant 15 the plaintiff leave to take early discovery to determine the defendant's identity ‘unless it is 16 clear that discovery would not uncover the identit[y], or that the complaint would be 17 dismissed on other grounds.’” Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 319 F.R.D. 299, 302 (E.D. Cal. 18 2016); (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). 19 At the time Judge Torres issued the January 14, 2026, Order, the parties had not yet 20 conducted the Rule 26(f) conference, and no exception to Rule 26(d)(1) applied. 21 Accordingly, discovery—including the issuance of subpoenas—could not commence. 22 Accordingly, Judge Torres acted well within her authority in striking the Subpoena Motion. 23 C. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time 24 On October 23, 2025, Defendants J. Farala, K. Tenorio, M. Blaisdell, J. Hodges, 25 California Department of Corrections, T. Williamson, J. Lewis, K. Cowart, K. Cottrell, J. 26 Cota, V. Carrillo, J. Moeckly, and P. Bracamonte filed an ex parte motion for an extension 27 of time to file a responsive pleading. ECF No. 35. On April 20, 2026, the Court granted 28 Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and denied the motion for extension of time as 1 moot. ECF No. 58. 2 In her objection, Plaintiff first contends that Defendants’ motion for an extension of 3 time remains pending and has not been granted. ECF No. 47 at 2. Plaintiff also notes that 4 Defendants J. Amaya, Marcus Alexander, D. Arroyo, and R. Barenchi did not join the 5 motion. Based on this observation, Plaintiff argues that those Defendants have waived any 6 affirmative defenses available under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive. After the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file 8 an amended complaint, the operative pleading changed, rendering Defendants’ motion for 9 an extension of time to respond to the prior complaint moot. The Court, therefore, denied 10 the motion. Whether certain Defendants joined the motion for an extension of time is 11 likewise moot in light of the procedural posture of this case. Accordingly, Judge Torres 12 did not err in denying the motion. 13 D. Request for Discovery 14 In the Discovery Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to open discovery and issue a 15 “discovery schedule.” ECF No. 36 at 1. Judge Torres denied Plaintiff’s request, explaining 16 that as of the date of the Order, at least 9 of the 29 named Defendants have not been served 17 and no Defendant had filed a response to the Complaint. ECF No. 40 at 5. Plaintiff objects 18 to that determination, arguing that whether Defendants have filed responsive pleadings 19 “should [have] no legal bearing on discovery.” ECF No. 47 at 3. 20 Plaintiff's objection lacks merit. Under Rule 26(d)(1), "[a] party may not seek 21 discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)," 22 absent an applicable exception. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). At the time Judge Torres issued 23 the January 14, 2026, Order, the parties had not conducted a Rule 26(f) conference, and 24 Plaintiff identifies no applicable exception permitting discovery to proceed. Given that 25 numerous Defendants had not yet been served and the case had not progressed to the 26 scheduling stage, Judge Torres did not err in concluding that Plaintiff's request to open 27 discovery was premature. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Judge 28 Torres's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and the objection is overruled. l E. Protective Order 2 On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed Medical Records Motion seeking permission 3 ||to both file medical records as confidential and a standing order directing parties to file 4 ||medical records as confidential. ECF No. 16 at 1. In the January 14, 2026 Order, Judge 5 || Torres construed the motion as a request to seal Plaintiff’s medical records. ECF No. 40 6 4. Although Plaintiff attached medical records to the Complaint, she did not submit any 7 medical records with the Medical Records Motion. Jd. Accordingly, Judge Torres denied 8 ||the motion because there were no medical records before the Court to seal. /d. In her 9 || objection, Plaintiff asserts that she “filed over 500 pages of relevant medical and mental 10 health records.” ECF No. 47 at 4. 11 The Court agrees with Judge Torres's ruling. At the time the motion was decided, 12 ||there were no medical records submitted in connection with the motion for the Court to 13 and the denial was therefore appropriate. See ECF No. 16. Should Plaintiff file an 14 ||amended complaint and submit medical records together with a renewed motion to seal or 15 motion for a protective order, the Court will consider the request at that time. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any portion of 18 ||Judge Torres's January 14, 2026, Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 19 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections is OVERRULED, ECF No. 47, and Judge Torres's 20 || January 14, 2026, Order is AFFIRMED. ECF No. 40. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: September 1, 2026 23 24 6 Cb a fu 25 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 27 28 25-cv-0574-BJC-VET