(PC) Garraway v. Ciufo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MITCHELL THEOPHILUS No. 1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA (PC) GARRAWAY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST v. FOR CLARIFICATION 14 JACQUILINE CUIFO, et al., (Doc. No. 95) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Mitchell Garraway is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 20 (1971), and the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 27, 2019, plaintiff filed a “Request for an Explanation of Recalled Magistrate 23 Judge’s Gary S. Austin’s Strange Terms,” in which he requests the district court to order the 24 magistrate judge to explain several parts of the orders issued by the assigned magistrate judge on 25 March 29, 2019 and February 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 95. at 2–3.) The relevant portions of the 26 magistrate judge’s orders stayed the proceedings “with the exception of discovery related to 27 whether Plaintiff fails to state claim under Abbasi[.]” (Doc. Nos. 65, 93.) The court will construe 28 plaintiff’s filing as a request for clarification. 1 Although there is no specific Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing “motions of 2 | clarification,” “‘[t]he general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify 3 | something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.’” United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 4 | 793 F. Supp. 2d 164, 168 (D.D.C. 2011); see also Bordallo v. Reyes, 763 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th 5 | Cir. 1985) (concluding that a request for clarification invites “interpretation, which trial courts are 6 | often asked to supply, for the guidance of the parties and is not a “request to alter or amend the 7 | judgment”); Wahl v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. C 08-0555 RS, 2010 WL 2867130, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 8 | July 20, 2010) (noting that a “court may clarify its order for any reason’). 9 Here, the magistrate judge referenced in his orders the Supreme Court’s decision in Ziglar 10 || v. Abbasi, wherein the Court “urged caution before extending Bivens remedies into any new 11 || context” because “expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity.” Ziglar v. 12 | Abbasi, U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1855, 1857 (2017) (citation omitted). The magistrate 13 || judge’s order thus stayed all discovery save for that relating to plaintiff's Eight Amendment claim 14 | that prison officials had demonstrated deliberate indifference by failing to protect him from the 15 | risk of violent attack by other inmates. 16 In any event, plaintiffs request for clarification has now been mooted by the magistrate 17 || judge’s order issued on March 3, 2020, which lifted the stay of discovery in this case. (Doc. No. 18 | 97.) Plaintiff may now seek discovery pursuant to that order. (d.) 19 Accordingly, plaintiff's request for clarification (Doc. No. 95) is denied as having been 20 || rendered moot. 21 | IT IS SOORDERED. me □ ** | Dated: _Mareh 9, 2020 Yole A Lara 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28