Michael Ward v. City of Redding, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses several post-scheduling-conference filings in Michael Ward’s civil rights action against the City of Redding and other defendants. The court construes two filings as requests for district-judge reconsideration, denies an objection and request concerning discovery deadlines, and vacates without prejudice a request to restore a dismissed Monell claim. The court directs plaintiff to seek leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and sets a status conference for October 29, 2025.

Holdings

1. Filings that clearly seek review of a magistrate judge's ruling may be construed as requests for reconsideration under Local Rule 303(c), even when they do not use the rule's required caption.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled on the filing presented to modify the scheduling order or reset the initial-disclosure deadline because the record showed no limitation on discovery and no identified basis for extending the deadline.
3. A request to plead new factual allegations supporting a dismissed Monell claim must be treated as a request for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), rather than as a motion simply to reinstate the claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether filings that did not use the caption required by Local Rule 303(c) could nonetheless be construed as requests for district-judge reconsideration of the magistrate judge's discovery ruling.
2. Whether plaintiff established a basis to modify the scheduling order or extend the initial-disclosure deadline.
3. Whether plaintiff's motion to reinstate a dismissed Monell claim should be treated as a motion to amend and, if so, whether the requested amendment could be evaluated on the motion as filed.

Disposition

other