Houston v. Encore Event Technologies

Opinion

3 Matthew T. Houston, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01740-JAD-EJY

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Order Overruling Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Minute Order 6 Encore Event Technologies, et al., [ECF No. 28] 7 Defendants

9 A month after this case was dismissed with prejudice, pro se plaintiff Matthew T. 10 Houston filed 135 pages of random pages from other cases and wrote along the top margin of the 11 front page “Stipulation for an Order to Set Briefing Schedule; Notice of hearings and Statement 12 of Facts.”1 The magistrate judge denied relief by minute order, reasoning that “[a] review of the 13 docket in this matter shows there is nothing pending before the Court that requires a briefing 14 schedule. Thus, Plaintiff’s filing is a fugitive document.”2 Houston objects to that order by 15 writing on the bottom of the front page of another 66 pages of recycled filings, “In response to 16 Elayna J. Youchah’s Document No. 27: Nothing the Plaintiff is filing is ‘fugitive.’ Now see Las 17 Vegas Review Journal and Cease and Desist: Title Page in U.S. District Court.”3 18 A district judge may reconsider any non-dispositive matter that has been finally 19 determined by a magistrate judge “when it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is 20 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”4 This standard of review “is significantly deferential” to 21 1 ECF No. 26 at 1. 22 2 ECF No. 27. 23 3 ECF No. 28 at 1. 4 L.R. IB 3-1(a). 1||the magistrate judge’s determination.° A district court should overturn a magistrate judge’s determination under this standard only if it has “‘a definite and firm conviction that a mistake [of fact] has been committed”? or a relevant statute, law, or rule has been omitted or misapplied.’ 4 Houston’s nonsensical objection falls far short of demonstrating that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. This case had indeed been dismissed and closed when Houston refiled this pile of papers containing a newly scrawled title that suggested he was seeking a briefing schedule. There was no need for a briefing schedule for anything at 8|| that time, and Houston didn’t explain why there was. Plus there was nothing in that filing that even resembled a stipulation. So the magistrate judge properly declined to provide any such 10]| relief. 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Houston’s objection to the magistrate judge’s 12] minute order at ECF No. 27 [ECF No. 28] is OVERRULED. This case remains closed, and Houston is prohibited from filing any further documents in this case other than a proper 14] notice of appeal. 15 TLR 16 US. District Sige Jennifé_A. Dorsey October 24, 2023 17 18 19 20 21 2 > Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). 23}|° Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 1 See Grimes v. City and County. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 240-41 (9th Cir. 1991).