1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, No. 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION, 14 J. LEWIS, et al., DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT, ADOPTING FINDINGS 15 Defendants. AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 16 TERMINATING SANCTIONS
17 (Doc. Nos. 106, 119, 121, 128, 129)
18 19 Plaintiff Krzysztof F. Wolinski is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 30, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions, requesting the 23 court dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with his discovery 24 obligations, the court’s orders, the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and because 25 the court had already issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount 26 of $1,000.00 and Plaintiff proceeded undeterred by the court’s warning that he “is required to 27 follow all state and federal rules and laws throughout these proceedings,” (see Doc. No. 36). 28 (Doc. No. 106.) Because Plaintiff did not file a timely response to that motion, the magistrate 1 judge issued an order on September 16, 2024 sua sponte granting Plaintiff an extension of time to 2 file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion and warning that “[n]o 3 further extensions of time will be granted to plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 112.) Despite that warning, 4 Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ motion but rather filed a motion for an extension 5 of time, asserting—for the first time—that he had not received a copy of their motion. (Doc. No. 6 114.) On October 15, 2024, the magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of 7 time because Plaintiff had “not demonstrated good cause for the requested extension of time.” 8 (Doc. No. 117.) 9 On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration by the undersigned of 10 the magistrate judge’s October 15, 2024 order denying his motion for an extension of time. (Doc. 11 No. 119.) The standard of review for “all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to 12 law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” L.R. 303(f) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive pretrial matters may 14 be referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a); see also L.R. 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part of 16 the magistrate judge’s order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” L.R. 17 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The magistrate judge’s factual determinations are 18 reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are 19 contrary to law. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled 20 on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate 21 judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an 22 element of [the] applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or 23 rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 24 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014). “[R]eview under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly 25 deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 26 Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 27 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 28 Here, Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s October 15, 2024 order 1 but he does not articulate any basis for reconsideration, nor explain how the magistrate judge’s 2 order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Instead, Plaintiff appears to conflate the standard 3 for ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with the legal 4 standard for reconsideration, because he asserts that the magistrate judge erred by not accepting 5 as true his assertion that he had not received a copy of Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 119 at 4.) 6 Plaintiff is mistaken. The magistrate judge applied the correct legal standard, which requires 7 Plaintiff to demonstrate good cause. Further, the magistrate judge did not err in finding Plaintiff 8 had failed to show good cause for the requested extension of time given that Plaintiff 9 acknowledged he received Defendants’ proposed order granting their motion, and his lengthy 10 supporting declaration signed under penalty of perjury does not include a statement that he had 11 not received a copy of Defendants’ motion. (See Doc. Nos. 114, 117.) For these reasons, 12 Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s October 15, 2024 order will be 13 denied. 14 On January 17, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 15 recommending that Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. No. 106) be granted and 16 this action be dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s 17 orders. (Doc. No. 121.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found dismissal warranted because: (i) 18 Plaintiff’s complete refusal to participate in the discovery process impedes resolution of this case, 19 which has been pending for over eight years and still discovery has not been completed; (ii) 20 Plaintiff’s “behavior and noncompliance repeatedly demanded this court’s attention, time, and 21 resources”; (iii) “Plaintiff’s complete failure to respond [to Defendants’ discovery requests] is 22 decidedly prejudicial to Defendants”; and (iv) the court tried lesser sanctions, including monetary 23 sanctions and warnings, yet “Plaintiff has continued to disregard this court’s rules, orders, and 24 deadlines.” (Id. at 8–11.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 25 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the 26 date of service. (Id. at 12.) On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the pending 27 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 126.) Defendants did not file a response thereto or 28 objections of their own.
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 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, No. 2:17-cv-00583-DC-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION, 14 J. LEWIS, et al., DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT, ADOPTING FINDINGS 15 Defendants. AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 16 TERMINATING SANCTIONS
17 (Doc. Nos. 106, 119, 121, 128, 129)
18 19 Plaintiff Krzysztof F. Wolinski is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 30, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions, requesting the 23 court dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with his discovery 24 obligations, the court’s orders, the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and because 25 the court had already issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount 26 of $1,000.00 and Plaintiff proceeded undeterred by the court’s warning that he “is required to 27 follow all state and federal rules and laws throughout these proceedings,” (see Doc. No. 36). 28 (Doc. No. 106.) Because Plaintiff did not file a timely response to that motion, the magistrate 1 judge issued an order on September 16, 2024 sua sponte granting Plaintiff an extension of time to 2 file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion and warning that “[n]o 3 further extensions of time will be granted to plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 112.) Despite that warning, 4 Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ motion but rather filed a motion for an extension 5 of time, asserting—for the first time—that he had not received a copy of their motion. (Doc. No. 6 114.) On October 15, 2024, the magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of 7 time because Plaintiff had “not demonstrated good cause for the requested extension of time.” 8 (Doc. No. 117.) 9 On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration by the undersigned of 10 the magistrate judge’s October 15, 2024 order denying his motion for an extension of time. (Doc. 11 No. 119.) The standard of review for “all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to 12 law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” L.R. 303(f) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive pretrial matters may 14 be referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a); see also L.R. 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part of 16 the magistrate judge’s order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” L.R. 17 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The magistrate judge’s factual determinations are 18 reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are 19 contrary to law. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled 20 on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate 21 judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an 22 element of [the] applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or 23 rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 24 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014). “[R]eview under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly 25 deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 26 Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 27 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 28 Here, Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s October 15, 2024 order 1 but he does not articulate any basis for reconsideration, nor explain how the magistrate judge’s 2 order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Instead, Plaintiff appears to conflate the standard 3 for ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with the legal 4 standard for reconsideration, because he asserts that the magistrate judge erred by not accepting 5 as true his assertion that he had not received a copy of Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 119 at 4.) 6 Plaintiff is mistaken. The magistrate judge applied the correct legal standard, which requires 7 Plaintiff to demonstrate good cause. Further, the magistrate judge did not err in finding Plaintiff 8 had failed to show good cause for the requested extension of time given that Plaintiff 9 acknowledged he received Defendants’ proposed order granting their motion, and his lengthy 10 supporting declaration signed under penalty of perjury does not include a statement that he had 11 not received a copy of Defendants’ motion. (See Doc. Nos. 114, 117.) For these reasons, 12 Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s October 15, 2024 order will be 13 denied. 14 On January 17, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 15 recommending that Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. No. 106) be granted and 16 this action be dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s 17 orders. (Doc. No. 121.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found dismissal warranted because: (i) 18 Plaintiff’s complete refusal to participate in the discovery process impedes resolution of this case, 19 which has been pending for over eight years and still discovery has not been completed; (ii) 20 Plaintiff’s “behavior and noncompliance repeatedly demanded this court’s attention, time, and 21 resources”; (iii) “Plaintiff’s complete failure to respond [to Defendants’ discovery requests] is 22 decidedly prejudicial to Defendants”; and (iv) the court tried lesser sanctions, including monetary 23 sanctions and warnings, yet “Plaintiff has continued to disregard this court’s rules, orders, and 24 deadlines.” (Id. at 8–11.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 25 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the 26 date of service. (Id. at 12.) On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the pending 27 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 126.) Defendants did not file a response thereto or 28 objections of their own. 1 In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, Plaintiff first restates his 2 factual allegations and expresses his dissatisfaction with the magistrate judge’s rulings on 3 Plaintiff’s numerous requests for an order directing non-parties to provide him expedited access 4 to the law library and an ADA computer. (Id. at 1–10.) However, Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with 5 the magistrate judge’s denial of those requests is not material to the pending findings and 6 recommendations. Second, Plaintiff asserts the magistrate judge is biased against him because he 7 is disabled, and the court previously sanctioned him due to this bias and prejudice. (Id. at 2, 12, 8 17.) Plaintiff’s unsupported accusations of bias simply do not meaningfully address the substance 9 of the pending findings and recommendations, which centered on Plaintiff’s repeated failures to 10 comply with the court’s orders and rules. In short, Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon 11 which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 13 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 14 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court will 15 therefore adopt the pending findings and recommendations and grant Defendants’ motion for 16 terminating sanctions. 17 On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the magistrate judge on the 18 grounds that she lacks impartiality, discriminates against pro se plaintiffs with disabilities, refuses 19 to adhere to established laws, and implements a culture of bias towards Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 124.) 20 On March 31, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for 21 disqualification. (Doc. No. 127.) On April 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration 22 by the undersigned of the magistrate judge’s March 31, 2025 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for 23 disqualification of the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 128.) As noted above, the undersigned finds 24 Plaintiff’s accusations of bias to be unsupported. As reflected in Plaintiff’s filings, Plaintiff 25 remains dissatisfied with the magistrate judge’s rulings denying his numerous requests for an 26 ADA computer and expedited access to the law library, despite the magistrate judge’s repeated 27 explanation that the court does not have jurisdiction over the wardens and law librarians because 28 they are not parties to this litigation. As the magistrate judge correctly stated in the March 31, 1 | 2025 order, “[t]o provide grounds for recusal, prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source. 2 | A judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.” (Doc. No. 127 at 2) (quoting 3 | Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984)). For these reasons, the undersigned does 4 | not find the magistrate judge’s March 31, 2025 to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Thus, 5 || the court will deny Plaintiffs request for reconsideration of that order. 6 Finally, on April 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “motion to alter judgment” pursuant to Federal 7 | Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), (Doc. No. 129), which the court will deny because judgment has 8 | not been entered in this case, and in any event, Plaintiff merely repeats the arguments he 9 | advanced in his motion for disqualification. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 17, 2025 (Doc. No. 121) are 12 ADOPTED in full; 13 2. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions (Doc. No. 106) is GRANTED; 14 3. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, due to Plaintiffs failure to comply 15 with court orders; 16 4. Plaintiffs requests for reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 119, 128) are DENIED; 17 5. Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment (Doc. No. 129) is DENIED; and 18 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 21 | Dated: _Jume 24, 2025 DUC Dena Coggins 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28