Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dev v. Donahoe

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 15, 2013

LAL DEV, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Lal Dev's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge's Ruling (Doc. #18).[1] Defendant did not file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on December 17, 2012 against Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service ("Defendant"). He alleges four causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 2000e(5): (1) race/color discrimination, (2) sex discrimination, (3) retaliation for protected activities, and (4) disparate treatment. Compl. at 1. This action is related to Dev v. Donahoe, 2:11-cv-02950 JAM-EFB.

Plaintiff requested the Magistrate Judge to issue an order to restore to his account all the leaves of absence he has had to use to appear for all the judicial proceedings because Plaintiff's supervisor denied his request for court leave. Parties' Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute, Doc. #12, at 10. He also requested the Court to enjoin Defendant and his agents to allow Plaintiff court leave. Id . The Magistrate Judge denied the requests because Plaintiff had not pursued administrative remedies before presenting the issue to the Court. Transcript of Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Attendance at his Deposition Proceedings held on Sept. 4, 2013, Doc. #17, at 7. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's ruling. Mot. at 1.

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

The standard for a Motion for Reconsideration is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 303. The district court "may reconsider any pretrial matter... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L. R. 303(f). The standard of review under § 636(b)(1)(A) is highly deferential; see United States v. Abonce-Barrera , 257 F.3d 959, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2001), and does not permit the reviewing court to substitute its own judgment for that of the magistrate judge's. Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco , 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge should have considered the court leave issue because it is related to his action. Plaintiff primarily relies on Gupta v. East Texas State University , 654 F.2d 411, 414 (5th Cir. 1981). In Gupta, the Fifth Circuit held, "It is unnecessary for a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies prior to urging a retaliation claim growing out of an earlier charge; the district court has ancillary jurisdiction to hear such a claim when it grows out of an administrative charge that is properly before the court." Id . Similarly, in Bouman v. Block , 940 F.2d 1211, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff could add an unexhausted retaliation claim in her discrimination suit because the retaliation claim was "reasonably related" to the discrimination action. Id . Here, Plaintiff requested an order to restore to his account all the leaves he has used and requested the Court to enjoin Defendant. Plaintiff, however, was not attempting to add an unexhausted retaliation claim based on the denial of the court leave. Therefore, Gupta and Bouman do not apply and Plaintiff's request was not properly before the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge's ruling is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law."

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.