Harrington v. Bautista et al

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING 60 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the June 2, 2015, Order Denying Request for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/23/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARRICK HARRINGTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
J. BAUTISTA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 2, 2015,
ORDER DENYING HIS REQUEST FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 60]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 2, 2015,

19
20

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01802-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Garrick Harrington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

order denying his request for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 58, 60.)
This Court reviews a motion to reconsideration a magistrate judge’s ruling on non-dispositive

21
22

motions under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

23

636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). As such, the Court may only set aside those portions of a

24

magistrate judge’s order that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see

25

also Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (discovery

26

sanctions are non-dispositive pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P.

27

72(a)).

28
1

A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left with

1
2

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v. International

3

Bhd. Of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 489 (C.D.

4

Cal. 2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe and

5

Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S.

6

602, 623 (1993) (citation omitted).

7

The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal

8

determinations by a magistrate judge. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir.

9

1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002).

10

“An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of

11

procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008);

12

Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to amend and

13
14

also reviewed Plaintiff’s instant motion for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge was within his

15

discretion to deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend as Plaintiff failed to set forth any bases upon which he

16

sought leave to amend. Indeed, in the present motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends he sought

17

leave to amend to clarify the exhaustion of the California Tort Claims Act as it relates to his state law

18

claims. However, as stated in the Court’s July 16, 2014, order, “based on the allegations presented in

19

the First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s alleged compliance with the California Tort Claims Act,

20

the Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for state-law tort claim of a negligence against

21

Defendants Bautista, Blaylock, James, Rupp, and Hackworth, in addition to a claim of deliberate

22

indifference to Plaintiff’s safety against Defendants Bautista and Blaylock.” (ECF No. 36, Order 2:2-

23

4.) Thus, there is no need for Plaintiff to further amend the complaint as to the state law claims.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s present motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s June 2,

2

2015, order is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

June 23, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3