Filed: Sep. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . On September 3, 2015, plaintiff filed a request styled, "Request for Change to the . . . Magistrate Judge's Pretrial Order." (ECF No. 201.) Plaintiff's request describes the magistrate judge's August 19, 2015 order as a "pretrial order," allegedly addressing plaintiff's pretrial statement. Plaintiff contends that certain declarations must be admitted into evidence at his trial, and challenges the denial of his request for judicial notice. Plaintiff's
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . On September 3, 2015, plaintiff filed a request styled, "Request for Change to the . . . Magistrate Judge's Pretrial Order." (ECF No. 201.) Plaintiff's request describes the magistrate judge's August 19, 2015 order as a "pretrial order," allegedly addressing plaintiff's pretrial statement. Plaintiff contends that certain declarations must be admitted into evidence at his trial, and challenges the denial of his request for judicial notice. Plaintiff's ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
On September 3, 2015, plaintiff filed a request styled, "Request for Change to the . . . Magistrate Judge's Pretrial Order." (ECF No. 201.) Plaintiff's request describes the magistrate judge's August 19, 2015 order as a "pretrial order," allegedly addressing plaintiff's pretrial statement. Plaintiff contends that certain declarations must be admitted into evidence at his trial, and challenges the denial of his request for judicial notice. Plaintiff's request was signed by him on August 28, 2015.
However, the August 19, 2015 order was not a "pretrial order," as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Local Rule 283. Indeed, the order did not address the issue of exhibits at plaintiff's trial. Plaintiff's requested exhibits will be included in the court's pretrial order, and the parties are provided a period of time in which to object to the pretrial order. Because the August 19, 2015 order was not the pretrial order, the undersigned construes plaintiff's motion as a request for reconsideration of the order. Under the mailbox rule, plaintiff's motion was timely-filed because he signed the request on August 28, 2015, within the fourteen day deadline. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[T]he Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners."), citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988).
The magistrate judge's order, signed August 19, 2015, denied plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery, and his requests for subpoena duces tecum, examination or expert witness, and judicial notice. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id. Upon review of the file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge signed August 19, 2015 (ECF No. 201), is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
