Samuels v. Lizarraga
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, moved for reconsideration of an order denying his motion to continue the discovery completion deadline, arguing that the court failed to address the impact of the pandemic and law library restrictions. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that these factors actually impeded his discovery efforts, and thus did not demonstrate clear error.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 59(e) motions, which requires a showing of clear error, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in law. The plaintiff's argument that the court failed to address specific factors (pandemic and library access) is effectively an argument that the court erred in its initial assessment of 'good cause.' The court found that the plaintiff's conclusory statements were insufficient to prove that these factors actually prevented him from propounding discovery. Because the plaintiff did not provide evidence of actual impediment, the court's initial denial of the extension was not 'clearly erroneous.' The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable procedural rule (Rule 59(e)) based on the timing of the filing. It accurately states the standard for reconsideration. The application of the standard to the facts is sound: the plaintiff offered only conclusory statements about the pandemic and library access without evidence that these factors actually prevented him from completing discovery. The court correctly concluded that such statements do not demonstrate clear error in the initial denial of the extension.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT EARL SAMUELS, Case No.: 20cv1051-MDD-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 M. LIZARRAGA, Defendant. 14 [ECF No. 25] 15 16 Robert Earl Samuels (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a motion for 18 reconsideration of the Court’s February 10, 2021 Order denying Plaintiff’s 19 motion to continue the discovery completion deadline.1 (ECF No. 15). 20 Plaintiff asked for additional time due to Defendant M. Lizarraga’s objections 21 and claims of privilege in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 22 19). Plaintiff concluded that “[a]ll of this is complicated by Covid-19 and the 23 24 25 1 Plaintiff brought the motion as an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 25). However, Rule 72 does not apply to a 26 Magistrate Judge’s Order when the parties have consented to that Judge’s jurisdiction for purposes of trial and settlement. As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a 1 restrictions on law library access.” (Id. at 2). The Court denied the motion, 2 explaining that “[t]he fact that Plaintiff has not received responses without 3 objection or claims of privilege does not constitute good cause” to extend the 4 discovery completion deadline. (ECF No. 20 at 2). Plaintiff now moves for 5 reconsideration because the Court did not specifically address Covid-19 and 6 law library restrictions. (ECF No. 25). 7 A motion for reconsideration may be brough under Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). A motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend 9 judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of entry of 10 judgment or the ruling; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for 11 relief from a judgment or order. Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. 12 Construction Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a 13 motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion under Rule 59(e) if it is 14 timely filed under that rule and as a motion under Rule 60(b) otherwise). 15 Here, the Order referenced was filed on February 10, 2021 and the instant 16 motion was constructively filed on February 21, 2021. (ECF Nos. 20, 25). 17 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is properly brought under Rule 59(e). See Am. 18 Ironworks & Erectors, Inc., 248 F.3d at 898-99. 19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), district courts have 20 the power to reconsider a previous ruling or entry of judgment. Under Rule 21 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a previous ruling if “(1) the district 22 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court 23 committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, 24 or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. 25 v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation 26 omitted). 1 ||his discovery attempts are “complicated by Covid-19 and the restrictions on 9 ||law library access.” (ECF Nos. 19 at 2, 25). Plaintiff further explains that 3 || Covid-19 has “unpredictable effects” on his access to the law library. (ECF 4 ||No. 25 at 1). However, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that Covid-19 has 5 ||impacted his ability to propound evidence or that he has been denied access 6 ||to the law library. Merely stating that Covid-19 has “unpredictable effects” 7 his access is insufficient to show good cause to extend the discovery 8 ||deadline, and therefore, insufficient to show clear error. (See ECF No. 25 at 9 ||1). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2021 Vitel » [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27