Allen v. Stanislaus County et al
Filing
68
ORDER denying 64 MOTION for Reconsideration of 11/12/2015 Order denying Request for Appointment of Counsel signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/11/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
COLUMBUS ALLEN, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
STANISLAUS COUNTRY, et al.,,
No. 1:13-CV-00012-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER
12, 2015, ORDER DENYING HIS REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 64)
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff Columbus Allen, Jr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
20
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 12, 2015, the assigned Magistrate Judge
21
denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed
22
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s November 12, 2015, order. (Doc. No. 64.)
23
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to serve and file
24
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order within fourteen days. In this Court, this
25
type of objection is treated as a motion for reconsideration by the assigned District Judge and
26
should be captioned “Request for Reconsideration.” See Local Rule 303. While Plaintiff did not
27
file a request for reconsideration, in the interests of justice the Court will review Plaintiff’s
28
objections under Local Rule 303.
1
1
Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v.
2
Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437,
3
441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly
4
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water
5
Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part
6
on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
7
This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly
8
erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge’s order that are
10
either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and
11
County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (discovery sanctions are non-
12
dispositive pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).
13
A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left
14
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v.
15
International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D.
16
485, 489 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.”
17
Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
18
Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).
19
The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal
20
determinations by the magistrate judge. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd
21
Cir. 1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th
22
Cir. 2002). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes,
23
case law, or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553,
24
556 (D. Minn. 2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y.
25
2007); Surles v. Air France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see Adolph Coors Co. v.
26
Wallace, 570 F.Supp. 202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983).
27
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is devoid of grounds entitling him to reconsideration
28
of the November 12, 2015 order denying appointment of counsel. The Magistrate Judge properly
2
1
considered the evidence submitted by Plaintiff along with the record in this case and correctly
2
determined exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated to warrant appointment of counsel
3
in this case, at this time. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement the ruling does not suffice. United States
4
v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 64) is DENIED.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated:
December 11, 2015
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?