Logue v. Root et al, No. 9:2019cv00101 - Document 161 (D. Mont. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 157 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full. 22 Motion to object and to stay DENIED AS MOOT; 113 Motion to strike GRANTED; 122 motion for leave to file brief DENIED; 124 , 149 Motions to admit evidence and for subpoena DENIED, 125 Motion to extend deadlines DENIED; 126 , 143 Motions to Appoint Counsel DENIED, 128 Motion for pretrial relief DENIED; 150 Motion for subpoena DENIED; 153 MOTION for Leave to File DENIED; 134 Motion in limine GRANTED in part; 136 M otion for judicial notice GRANTED; 143 Motion to Stay and for Reconsideration DENIED; 48 , 99 Motions for Summary Judgment GRANTED in part. The Court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 7/8/2020. Mailed to Logue. (TAG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Logue v. Root et al Doc. 161 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION CLARENCE REDMOND LOGUE, vs. Plaintiff, CV 19-101-M-BMM-JTJ JENNIFER ROOT; C.D.O. COOPER; and TAMMY BOWEN, ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. Background Plaintiff Clarence Redmond Logue (“Logue”) filed a prolific number of motions, including the following eleven: Motion to Object and to Stay (Doc. 22); Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48); Motion for Leave to file Response Brief (Doc. 122); Motions to Admit Evidence (Docs. 124, 149) Motion to Extend Deadlines for Discovery and Pretrial Motions (Doc. 125); Motions for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 126); Motion for Pre-trial Relief (Doc. 128); Motion for Reconsideration, to Appoint Counsel, and to Stay (Doc. 143); 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 9 Motion for Subpoena (Doc. 150); and Motion for Leave to File Statement (Doc. 153). Defendants Jennifer Root, C.D.O. Cooper, and Tammy Bowen (“Defendants”) have also filed several motions, including the following three: Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 99); Motion in Limine (Doc. 134); and Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 136). United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston issued Findings and Recommendations covering all these motions on June 11, 2020. (Doc. 157.) Judge Johnston recommended that the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. (Doc. 157 at 26.) Judge Johnston next recommended that Logue’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) should be granted as to the taking of $1,079.82 on January 25, 2018, and denied in all other respects. (Doc. 157 at 26.) Judge Johnston also recommended that Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 99) should be granted as to the taking of $174.10 on December 5, 2017, and as to any claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and denied in all other respects. (Doc. 157 at 26.) Judge Johnston finally recommended that Logue’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 143) should be denied. (Doc. 157 at 26.) 2 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 9 Judge Johnston denied the following motions: Logue’s Motion to Object and to Stay (Doc. 22); Logue’s Motion for Leave to File a Response Brief (Doc. 122); Logue’s Motions to Admit Evidence (Docs. 124, 149); Logue’s Motion to Extend Deadlines for Discovery and Pre-trial Motions (Doc. 125); Logue’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 126); Logue’s Motion for Pre-trial Relief (Doc. 128); Logue’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and to Stay (Doc. 143); Logue’s Motion for Subpoena (Doc. 150); and Logue’s Motion for Leave to File Statement (Doc. 153). Judge Johnston granted Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 113) and Defendants’ Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 136). Judge Johnston also granted Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 134) as to Items A, B, C, and D. Judge Johnston also granted the Motion in Limine (Doc. 134) as to Item E with respect to any allegations of medical malpractice or lack of medical. Finally, Judge Johnston denied the Motion in Limine (Doc. 134) as to potential expert disclosures or testimony regarding compensatory damages resulting from the due process violation. Legal Standard The Court reviews de novo Findings and Recommendations to which a party timely objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews for clear error the 3 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 9 portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which the parties did not specifically object. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Where a party’s objections constitute perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a reargument of the same arguments set forth in the original response, however, the Court will review the applicable portions of the findings and recommendations for clear error. Rosling v. Kirkegard, 2014 WL 693315 *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 21, 2014) (internal citations omitted). I. Logue’s Objections Logue objects, at length, to Judge Johnston’s dismissal of Logue’s theory that Defendants stand responsible for damages to Logue. Logue’s objections, while extensive, fail to constitute a specific objection. Logue additionally lodges general objections to Judge Johnston’s denial of several motions and granting of Defendants’ motions. (Doc. 158 at 16.) Logue provides no bases for these objections. Finally, Logue objects to Judge Johnston’s recommendation that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Logue appears to argue, without further explanation, that Judge Johnston’s “[a]nalysis is partially contrary 4 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 5 of 9 to what was held by the Ninth Circuit.”1 (Doc. 158 at 17.) Logue cites Shinault v. Hawks to support this argument. 782 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2015). Logue fails to explain how Judge Johnston’s analysis proves “partially contrary.” The Court will not make Logue’s argument for him. The Court finds no specific objections and will review Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations for clear error. The Court finds no error. II. Defendants’ Objections Defendants object to the following three of Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations: (1) Defendants violated Logue’s procedural right to due process as it relates to the withdrawal of $1,079.82; (2) Logue suffered injury by the deprivation of due process; and (3) Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. A. Whether Defendants violated Logue’s procedural right to due process Defendants first object to Judge Johnston’s conclusion that Defendants deprived Logue of due process. Defendants’ objection relies, nearly verbatim, on the same analysis set forth in their Brief in Support of Summary Judgment. 1 The Court altered Logue’s spelling to improve readability and clarity. 5 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 6 of 9 (Compare Doc. 101 at 13-19 with Doc. 159 at 3-8.) Judge Johnston considered those arguments in reaching his Findings and Recommendations. The Court will not reargue them. The Court reviews Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations for clear error. See Rosling, 2014 WL 693315 at *3. The Court finds no clear error. B. Whether Logue suffered injury Defendants next object to Judge Johnston’s conclusion that Logue suffered an injury from the lack of pre-deprivation hearing. Defendants’ objection recites, again nearly verbatim, the argument set forth in their Brief in Support of Summary Judgment. (Compare Doc. 101 at 19-20 with Doc. 159 at 8-9.) Defendants further cite Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977), to distinguish Judge Johnston’s reliance upon Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978). (Doc. 159 at 9.) Defendants’ attempt to distinguish Carey constitutes the same argument raised in their Brief in Support of Summary Judgment. The Court again reviews Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations for clear error. See Rosling, 2014 WL 693315 at *3. The Court finds no clear error. 6 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 7 of 9 C. Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity Defendants object finally that Judge Johnston incorrectly concluded that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants’ objection stands, once more, on a previously raised argument. Judge Johnston considered that argument in determining his Findings and Recommendations. The Court will only review those Findings and Recommendations for clear error. See Rosling, 2014 WL 693315 at *3. The Court finds no clear error. ORDER Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 157) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. Logue’s Motion to Object and to Stay (Doc. 22) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 113) is GRANTED. Logue’s Brief (Doc. 111) is STRICKEN. 4. Logue’s Motion for Leave to File a Response Brief (Doc. 122) is DENIED. 5. Logue’s Motions to Admit Evidence (Docs. 124, 149) are DENIED. 7 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 8 of 9 6. Logue’s Motion to Extend Discovery and Pre-trial Motions Deadlines (Doc. 125) is DENIED. 7. Logue’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel (Docs. 126, 143) are DENIED. 8. Logue’s Motion for Pre-trial Relief (Doc. 128) is DENIED and STRICKEN. 9. Logue’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 143) is DENIED. 10. Logue’s Motion for Subpoena (Doc. 150) is DENIED. 11. Logue’s Motion for Leave to File Statement (Doc. 153) is DENIED. 12. Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 134) is GRANTED as to Items A, B, C, and D. The Motion is also GRANTED as to Item E with respect to any allegations of medical malpractice or lack of medical care or prescriptions but DENIED as to potential expert disclosures or testimony relevant to compensatory damages resulting from the due process violation. 13. Defendants’ Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 136) is GRANTED. 14. The Court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction. 15. Logue’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) is GRANTED as to the taking of $1,079.82 on January 25, 2018, and DENIED in all other respects. 8 Case 9:19-cv-00101-BMM-JTJ Document 161 Filed 07/08/20 Page 9 of 9 16. Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 99) is GRANTED as to the taking of $174.10 on December 5, 2017, and as to any claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and DENIED in all other respects. 17. Logue’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 143) is DENIED. DATED this 8th day of July, 2020. 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
