Friddle v. CoreCivic et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Danny Friddle,
Plaintiff,
v.
CoreCivic, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-23-02414-PHX-KML (CDB)
ORDER
Plaintiff Danny Friddle appeals an order by the magistrate judge. The order denied
Friddle’s motion seeking the production of a defendant’s address where that defendant
could be served. (Doc. 171, 182.) Friddle is entitled to relief only if he can show the
magistrate judge’s ruling was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (same). “That standard is highly deferential
and does not allow the court to simply substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate
judge.” Blight v. City of Manteca, 266 F. Supp. 3d 1234, 1235 (E.D. Cal. 2017). The
magistrate judge’s ruling must be sustained unless the court is left with “a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997).
/
/
/
/
Case 2:23-cv-02414-KML-MBM Document 184 Filed 08/07/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Friddle has not established he is entitled to relief. The magistrate judge relied on
Friddle’s extreme delay in filing his motion, considering Friddle’s knowledge that he could
seek such assistance. It was not clearly erroneous for the magistrate judge to conclude, in
the context of this case and Friddle’s litigation behavior, his delay outweighed other
considerations.
IT IS ORDERED plaintiff’s appeal of the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. 182) is
REJECTED.
Dated this 7th day of August, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-02414-KML-MBM Document 184 Filed 08/07/26 Page 2 of 2