Johnston v. Gedney

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 * * *

5 RICHARD JOHNSTON, Case No. 3:16-cv-00754-MMD-WGC

6 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 7 KAREN GEDNEY, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 I. SUMMARY 11 This is a civil rights case involving Plaintiff Richard Johnston, who is in the custody 12 of the Nevada Department of Corrections. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to 13 Judge Cobb’s orders denying Plaintiff’s motions to stay proceedings and for leave to file 14 an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 69, 70.) The Court has reviewed Defendants’ 15 responses. (ECF Nos. 75, 76.) Plaintiff filed replies (ECF Nos. 79, 80), but the Court will 16 order these replies struck from the docket. See LR IB 3-1(a) (“Replies will be allowed only 17 with leave of the court.”). For the following reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s 18 objections. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 The Court adopts the background as described in Judge Cobb’s orders. (ECF No. 21 65 at 1-3; ECF No. 66 at 1-4.) 22 III. LEGAL STANDARD 23 Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court 24 review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (a “district judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or 26 set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”); see also 27 LR IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate 28 judge in a civil or criminal case under LB IB 1-3, when it has been shown the magistrate 2 “clearly erroneous” if the court has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 3 committed.” See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “An order 4 is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules 5 of procedure.” Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) 6 (quoting DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F. Supp. 2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). When reviewing 7 the order, however, the magistrate judge “is afforded broad discretion, which will be 8 overruled only if abused.” Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. 9 Cal. 2007). The district judge “may not simply substitute its judgment” for that of the 10 magistrate judge. Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 11 1991) (citing United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)). 12 IV. FIRST OBJECTION (ECF NO. 69) 13 Plaintiff’s first objection relates to Judge Cobb’s denial of a motion to stay 14 proceedings until discovery is completed (ECF No. 62). In that motion, Plaintiff argued 15 that he was denied all meaningful opportunity to discover and develop evidence material 16 to this case; that Defendants have not produced or disclosed any discovery whatsoever; 17 and that he should be permitted discovery before the Court rules on the pending motion 18 for summary judgment. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also filed three subpoenas duces tecum 19 regarding medical records. (Id. at 4-9.) 20 Judge Cobb evaluated the motion as both a request to amend the scheduling order 21 and as a motion made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (ECF No. 65 at 3-6.) 22 Judge Cobb denied the motion to the extent it constituted a request to amend the 23 scheduling order based primarily on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with LR 26-4. (See id. at 24 4-5.) Judge Cobb denied the motion to the extent it constituted a Rule 56(d) motion 25 because Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 56(d). (Id. at 5-6.) For example, Plaintiff did not 26 indicate what discovery he needed to undertake or what facts he hoped to elicit from 27 discovery. (Id.) Judge Cobb’s decision seems to have been based in large part on 28 Plaintiff’s failure to make his request until a year after the close of discovery. (See id. at 2 summary judgment as well as a counter-motion for summary judgment before filing his 3 motion to stay. (Id. at 6.) 4 Plaintiff primarily argues in his objection that Judge Cobb clearly erred because 5 Plaintiff did not have the legal box that contained the records of his case and because he 6 is a layperson who is incarcerated. (See ECF No. 69 at 6.) While the Court is sympathetic 7 to the challenges Plaintiff faces as an incarcerated litigant, Plaintiff has not demonstrated 8 that Judge Cobb clearly erred in denying Plaintiff’s motion. Regardless of Plaintiff’s 9 circumstances, Plaintiff did not comply with LR 26-4 or Rule 56(d). 10 Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s first objection. 11 V. SECOND OBJECTION (ECF NO. 70) 12 Plaintiff’s second objection relates to his motion for leave to amend his complaint 13 (ECF No. 63). In that motion, Plaintiff sought to add as defendants Drs. Johns and 14 Naughton and assert an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 15 needs claim against them. (Id. at 2.) 16 Judge Cobb denied the motion because Plaintiff did not show good cause for 17 amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. (ECF No. 66 at 5-6.) Judge Cobb 18 noted that the allegations of the proposed amended complaint as to Drs. Johns and 19 Naughton were the same as the bare allegations contained within the original complaint. 20 (Id. at 6.) Thus, Judge Cobb pointed out, “Plaintiff knew of the conduct that supported an 21 alleged constitutional violation from the outset, but failed to file his motion for leave to 22 amend to add these doctors as defendants and assert claims against them until well after 23 the relevant deadlines had expired.” (Id.) 24 In his objection, Plaintiff argues that Judge Cobb clearly erred because Plaintiff did 25 not have the legal box that contained the information he had about this case. (ECF No. 26 70 at 4.) Plaintiff also argues that Judge Cobb erred because the deadline for filing an 27 amended complaint kept moving. (Id. at 5.) Although the Court is sympathetic to the 28 challenges a layperson faces in litigating his own case, Judge Cobb did not clearly err in 1 || enforcing the discovery deadlines in this case. And although Plaintiff is proceeding pra 2 || se, he “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Tagle v. 3 || Nevada, No. 3:16-cv-00148-MMD-WGC, 2017 WL 6596588, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 26, 4 || 2017) (citing United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984)). 5 Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiffs second objection. 6 || VI. CONCLUSION 7 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 8 || cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 9 || determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 10 || objections before the Court. 11 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objections (ECF Nos. 69, 70) are overruled. 12 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court strike Plaintiff's replies (ECF Nos. 13 || 79, 80) from the docket. 14 DATED THIS 21% day of October 2019. 15 "6 {Sr 17 MIRANDA WM. DU 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28