Arbi Kamali v. Rose Stevens, Ivan Villegas, Jordan Bryan, and Alen Hernandez

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies Arbi Kamali’s ex parte motion challenging a prior order and renewing a request for a mandatory settlement conference. The court grants his motion for copies to the extent of directing the Clerk to provide courtesy copies of specified scheduling orders, while explaining that additional copies require payment of the applicable fee.

Holdings

1. A request for district-judge reconsideration of the magistrate judge's ruling had to be filed in the form required by Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(c), and objections to a nondispositive order generally had to be filed within fourteen days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
2. A settlement conference was not mandatory in this case, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) did not require one because Rule 23 governs class actions and the case was not a class action.
3. Summary judgment had not previously been decided, and the court could properly rule on Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment.
4. Proceeding in forma pauperis or proceeding pro se or as a prisoner does not entitle a party to complimentary copies of court documents; copies are provided upon payment of the statutory fee, subject to the court's one-time courtesy exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to reconsideration of the magistrate judge's prior denial of a settlement conference.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) requires a settlement conference in this non-class action.
3. Whether the court could continue to consider Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment.
4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to copies of scheduling orders without paying the applicable copying fee.

Disposition

other