Anderson v. Brown et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint 19 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/2/14: Thirty-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint - blank form)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB (PC)
DION ANDERSON,
Plaintiff

13
14
15
16
17

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ORDER REQUIRNG PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

EDMOND G. BROWN, et al.,
(ECF No. 19)
Defendants.
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on
19
November 5, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On May 17, 2013, the Court issued a screening order
20
dismissing this action, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) On June 7,
21
22

2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court‟s screening order. (ECF No. 16.)
On October 31, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying Plaintiff‟s motion for

23
reconsideration. (ECF No. 17.) On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the
24

Magistrate Judge‟s order and requested review by the undersigned. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff has

25
not yet filed an amended complaint.
26
Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v.
27
Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437,
28

1

441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly

2

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water

3

Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part

4

on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

5

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge‟s ruling under the “clearly

6

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge‟s order that are

8

either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and

9

Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive

10

pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

11

A Magistrate Judge‟s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left

12

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd.

13

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

14

2003). The “„clearly erroneous‟ standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe and Prods.

15

of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623, 113 S.Ct. 2264

16

(1993).

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

2002). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law,

21

or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D.

22

Minn. 2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Surles

23

v. Air France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570

24

F.Supp. 202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983).

25

The Magistrate Judge‟s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The

26

Court previously provided Plaintiff with the appropriate legal standards for his claims and granted

27

leave to amend the complaint.

28
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED; and

3

2.

Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of

4

service of this order or this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

5

may be granted.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 2, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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