1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 LEE EDWARD PEYTON, No. 2:21-cv-00719-DJC-KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BRIAN KIBLER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a Section 1983 claim against 19 Brian Kibler and several other warden staff members and correctional officers 20 (“Defendants”). (See Complaint (ECF No. 1) (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff earlier brought a 21 motion to compel production of videos against Defendants. (See Pl.’s Mot. to Compel 22 (ECF No. 41) (“MTC”).) Plaintiff’s motion was partially granted by the assigned 23 Magistrate Judge. (See 5/26/2022 Order (ECF No. 60).) Defendants served notice of 24 their compliance with the Magistrate Judge’s order (see ECF No. 63), and later moved 25 to modify the scheduling order (see ECF No. 66). The Magistrate Judge granted 26 Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (see ECF No. 67), from which 27 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration (see Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 68) (“Motion” or 28 1 “Mot.”). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is 2 DENIED. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by 5 “plac[ing] [Plaintiff] in life-threatening circumstances[] [and] forc[ing] [Plaintiff] to 6 accept and consume breakfast and dinner trays served by [Defendants and others] 7 whom do not wear facemask covering their mouths and nostrils, or to go without his 8 meals.” (Compl. ¶ 110; see also id. ¶¶ 121–24 (raising the Eighth Amendment failure 9 to care claim).) As the Magistrate Judge noted, “[t]his action is unusual in that 10 [P]laintiff personally created detailed logs of meal service from October 2020 to May 11 26, 2021, filed multiple grievances concerning the alleged violations of masking 12 protocols, and already obtained declarations from other inmates attesting to such 13 alleged violations.” (10/4/2022 Order (ECF No. 67) at 2 (citing MTC at 37–38).) 14 “Further, [P]laintiff ‘identified by name the porters and officers who allegedly served 15 [P]laintiff meals without properly wearing face masks.’” (10/4/2022 Order at 2 16 (quoting 5/26/2022 Order at 16).) 17 Despite Plaintiff’s detailed written account, the exhaustive administrative 18 record, and corroborating declarations from fellow inmates, Plaintiff moved to compel 19 production of surveillance videos from the relevant time period after Defendants 20 declined to produce these videos following exchanges with Plaintiff. (See MTC Exs. 2– 21 3, 5, 7, 9 (providing copies of communications between Plaintiff and Defendants 22 regarding Plaintiff’s Request for Production).) Plaintiff seeks this video evidence 23 because it corroborates Plaintiff’s basic claim that Defendants refused to enforce 24 relevant COVID-19 policies despite Plaintiff’s many complaints and despite 25 Defendants’ statements in responses to Plaintiff’s inmate grievances that they 26 reviewed such videos and found no violations. (See Compl. at ¶¶ 114–15, 117–18; 27 also 5/26/2022 Order at 12 (“While [D]efendant Pickett does not expressly state he 28 viewed the video, he also wrote ‘After a thorough review of all documents and 1 evidence presented at the Office of Grievances Level, it is the order of the Office of 2 Grievance to disapprove the claim.’”).) 3 The Magistrate Judge ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering 4 Defendants to produce the available videos for in camera review. (See 5/26/2022 5 Order at 10 (citing Pl.’s Req. for Prod. No. 3).) Defendants did so (see ECF No. 63), 6 and the Magistrate Judge ordered no further production of videos following the in 7 camera review (see 10/4/2022 Order at 3). However, in the Magistrate Judge’s order, 8 the Magistrate Judge “f[ound] that the videos sought are unreasonably cumulative or 9 duplicative of evidence already marshaled by [P]laintiff[,]” holding that there was “no 10 need to provide such videos to [P]laintiff for review.” (10/4/2022 Order at 2–3.) 11 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order so that 12 he may review them and “prepare for trial” and prepare to cross-examine Defendants. 13 (Mot. at 6; see also id. at 11 (“The witness credibility – particularly the [D]efendants is 14 critical to Plaintiff[‘s] case in chief.”).) 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 Under Local Rule 303, any party may file and serve a “Request for 17 Reconsideration by the District Judge of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See E.D. Cal. L.R. 18 303(c). A magistrate judge’s ruling may be modified by the District Judge only where 19 it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 20 law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The clear error standard requires that the 21 reviewing court affirm unless, on the entire evidence, the court is left with the definite 22 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10- 23 CV-00156-LJO-MJ, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014). A decision is 24 contrary to law where “it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an 25 element of [an] applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, 26 case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. (citation omitted). 27 //// 28 //// 1 ANALYSIS 2 I. The Timeliness Issue 3 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration should be 4 disregarded because Plaintiff did not timely object. (See Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for 5 Reconsid. (ECF No. 69) at 2 (“Resp.”).) Defendant cites to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 72(a) in support, which states that “[a] party may serve and file objections to 7 the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as 8 error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, a 9 party’s failure to timely object or seek review does not strip the District Court of the 10 power to reconsider any aspect of a Magistrate Judge’s pre-trial order. See, e.g., 11 Perez v. City of Fresno, 519 F. Supp. 3d 718, 730 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (collecting cases); 12 Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 657–58 (10th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). 13 Therefore, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration despite 14 any timeliness issues. See Allen, 468 F.3d at 658. However, to the extent that Plaintiff 15 seeks reconsideration of other orders, the Court concludes those challenges are 16 untimely and are denied. This denial specifically includes Plaintiff’s challenge to the 17 Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in his May 16, 2022 Order (ECF No. 60) related to 18 the production of surveillance video prior to February 10, 2021 and any other 19 challenges to that order. 20 II. The Scope of Production for Plaintiff to Review Before Trial 21 Plaintiff raises several objections to the Magistrate Judge’s prior orders (see 22 MTC at 1–5), but the only relevant objection relates to the Magistrate Judge’s decision 23 to at least exclude from admission at trial 200 videos Defendants produced (see MTC 24 at 6–14).1 The Magistrate Judge was correct to properly limit the scope of admissible
25 1 Plaintiff’s other arguments pertain to the Magistrate Judge’s findings of facts underlying the 26 Magistrate Judge’s initial order granting and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, decisions which are beyond the scope of this Court’s purview to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s order 27 modifying the schedule.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 LEE EDWARD PEYTON, No. 2:21-cv-00719-DJC-KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BRIAN KIBLER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a Section 1983 claim against 19 Brian Kibler and several other warden staff members and correctional officers 20 (“Defendants”). (See Complaint (ECF No. 1) (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff earlier brought a 21 motion to compel production of videos against Defendants. (See Pl.’s Mot. to Compel 22 (ECF No. 41) (“MTC”).) Plaintiff’s motion was partially granted by the assigned 23 Magistrate Judge. (See 5/26/2022 Order (ECF No. 60).) Defendants served notice of 24 their compliance with the Magistrate Judge’s order (see ECF No. 63), and later moved 25 to modify the scheduling order (see ECF No. 66). The Magistrate Judge granted 26 Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (see ECF No. 67), from which 27 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration (see Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 68) (“Motion” or 28 1 “Mot.”). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is 2 DENIED. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by 5 “plac[ing] [Plaintiff] in life-threatening circumstances[] [and] forc[ing] [Plaintiff] to 6 accept and consume breakfast and dinner trays served by [Defendants and others] 7 whom do not wear facemask covering their mouths and nostrils, or to go without his 8 meals.” (Compl. ¶ 110; see also id. ¶¶ 121–24 (raising the Eighth Amendment failure 9 to care claim).) As the Magistrate Judge noted, “[t]his action is unusual in that 10 [P]laintiff personally created detailed logs of meal service from October 2020 to May 11 26, 2021, filed multiple grievances concerning the alleged violations of masking 12 protocols, and already obtained declarations from other inmates attesting to such 13 alleged violations.” (10/4/2022 Order (ECF No. 67) at 2 (citing MTC at 37–38).) 14 “Further, [P]laintiff ‘identified by name the porters and officers who allegedly served 15 [P]laintiff meals without properly wearing face masks.’” (10/4/2022 Order at 2 16 (quoting 5/26/2022 Order at 16).) 17 Despite Plaintiff’s detailed written account, the exhaustive administrative 18 record, and corroborating declarations from fellow inmates, Plaintiff moved to compel 19 production of surveillance videos from the relevant time period after Defendants 20 declined to produce these videos following exchanges with Plaintiff. (See MTC Exs. 2– 21 3, 5, 7, 9 (providing copies of communications between Plaintiff and Defendants 22 regarding Plaintiff’s Request for Production).) Plaintiff seeks this video evidence 23 because it corroborates Plaintiff’s basic claim that Defendants refused to enforce 24 relevant COVID-19 policies despite Plaintiff’s many complaints and despite 25 Defendants’ statements in responses to Plaintiff’s inmate grievances that they 26 reviewed such videos and found no violations. (See Compl. at ¶¶ 114–15, 117–18; 27 also 5/26/2022 Order at 12 (“While [D]efendant Pickett does not expressly state he 28 viewed the video, he also wrote ‘After a thorough review of all documents and 1 evidence presented at the Office of Grievances Level, it is the order of the Office of 2 Grievance to disapprove the claim.’”).) 3 The Magistrate Judge ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering 4 Defendants to produce the available videos for in camera review. (See 5/26/2022 5 Order at 10 (citing Pl.’s Req. for Prod. No. 3).) Defendants did so (see ECF No. 63), 6 and the Magistrate Judge ordered no further production of videos following the in 7 camera review (see 10/4/2022 Order at 3). However, in the Magistrate Judge’s order, 8 the Magistrate Judge “f[ound] that the videos sought are unreasonably cumulative or 9 duplicative of evidence already marshaled by [P]laintiff[,]” holding that there was “no 10 need to provide such videos to [P]laintiff for review.” (10/4/2022 Order at 2–3.) 11 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order so that 12 he may review them and “prepare for trial” and prepare to cross-examine Defendants. 13 (Mot. at 6; see also id. at 11 (“The witness credibility – particularly the [D]efendants is 14 critical to Plaintiff[‘s] case in chief.”).) 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 Under Local Rule 303, any party may file and serve a “Request for 17 Reconsideration by the District Judge of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See E.D. Cal. L.R. 18 303(c). A magistrate judge’s ruling may be modified by the District Judge only where 19 it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 20 law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The clear error standard requires that the 21 reviewing court affirm unless, on the entire evidence, the court is left with the definite 22 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10- 23 CV-00156-LJO-MJ, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014). A decision is 24 contrary to law where “it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an 25 element of [an] applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, 26 case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. (citation omitted). 27 //// 28 //// 1 ANALYSIS 2 I. The Timeliness Issue 3 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration should be 4 disregarded because Plaintiff did not timely object. (See Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for 5 Reconsid. (ECF No. 69) at 2 (“Resp.”).) Defendant cites to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 72(a) in support, which states that “[a] party may serve and file objections to 7 the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as 8 error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, a 9 party’s failure to timely object or seek review does not strip the District Court of the 10 power to reconsider any aspect of a Magistrate Judge’s pre-trial order. See, e.g., 11 Perez v. City of Fresno, 519 F. Supp. 3d 718, 730 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (collecting cases); 12 Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 657–58 (10th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). 13 Therefore, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration despite 14 any timeliness issues. See Allen, 468 F.3d at 658. However, to the extent that Plaintiff 15 seeks reconsideration of other orders, the Court concludes those challenges are 16 untimely and are denied. This denial specifically includes Plaintiff’s challenge to the 17 Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in his May 16, 2022 Order (ECF No. 60) related to 18 the production of surveillance video prior to February 10, 2021 and any other 19 challenges to that order. 20 II. The Scope of Production for Plaintiff to Review Before Trial 21 Plaintiff raises several objections to the Magistrate Judge’s prior orders (see 22 MTC at 1–5), but the only relevant objection relates to the Magistrate Judge’s decision 23 to at least exclude from admission at trial 200 videos Defendants produced (see MTC 24 at 6–14).1 The Magistrate Judge was correct to properly limit the scope of admissible
25 1 Plaintiff’s other arguments pertain to the Magistrate Judge’s findings of facts underlying the 26 Magistrate Judge’s initial order granting and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, decisions which are beyond the scope of this Court’s purview to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s order 27 modifying the schedule. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s other arguments are ultimately irrelevant to this Court’s determination that the Magistrate Judge was correct in determining that not all 200 videos would be 28 admissible at trial. 1 evidence at trial. (See 10/4/2022 Order at 2–3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)–(c)(1)).) That 2 portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order was not clearly erroneous, contrary to 3 Plaintiff’s assertions. 4 However, Plaintiff must be able to prepare for trial, and his case centers on the 5 seven months that he claims Defendants nearly daily declined or refused to enforce its 6 mandatory COVID-19 policies. (See Mot. at 7.) As the Magistrate Judge noted, “[t]his 7 action is unusual” in light of Plaintiff’s “detailed logs,” the “multiple grievances 8 concerning the alleged violations of masking protocols, and already obtained 9 declarations from other inmates attesting to such alleged violations.” (10/4/2022 10 Order at 2 (citing MTC at 37–38).) 11 This Court recognizes and appreciates the privacy of other prisoners, potential 12 privilege issues, and real prison safety concerns that Defendants raised to the 13 Magistrate Judge. (See 5/26/2022 Order at 10.) However, as part of Plaintiff’s 14 deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff must prove the extent to which Defendants 15 enforced the prison’s COVID-19 policies on a daily basis. While Plaintiff’s logs should 16 be able to assist him in targeting which videos he wishes to review with more 17 specificity, to the extent there is any implication from that order that Plaintiff should be 18 limited to reviewing only two videos before trial, the Court concludes this 19 determination would be erroneous. However, in his order, the Magistrate Judge only 20 appears to notify Plaintiff that he must make more focused and limited pretrial 21 requests to review some of the 200 videos Defendants produced and that the 22 Magistrate Judge reviewed. Considering the concerns identified by Defendants, this 23 conclusion was not erroneous. 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 3 | □□□ □□ DENIED. Plaintiff's Request for Ruling (ECF No. 77) is DENIED AS MOOT. 4 5 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: _ August 22, 2023 Bel J Codobratn Hon. Daniel labretta 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 DJC3 – peyton22cv00719.mot.for.recons. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28