Anderson v. Kimbrell, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint 11 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/2/2014: Thirty-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint - blank form)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00378-AWI-DLB (PC)
DION ANDERSON
Plaintiff

10
11
12
13
14

v.

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

M. KIMBRELL, et al.,
(ECF No. 11)
Defendants.
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

15
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 15, 2013. On
16
October 18, 2013, the Court issued a screening order dismissing the complaint, with leave to
17
amend, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 10.) On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion
18

for reconsideration to the District Judge on the Court‟s screening order. (ECF No. 11.)

19
Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v.
20
Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437,
21
441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly
22
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water
23

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

24
on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
25
26
27
28

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge‟s ruling under the “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge‟s order that are

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

(1993).

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

cites to Brewer v. Wilkenson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993) in support of his motion for

20

reconsideration. Plaintiff correctly notes his right to access to the courts. However, the

21

Magistrate Judge correctly dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to show that

22

Defendants were the proximate cause of an actual injury. The Court previously provided Plaintiff

23

with the appropriate legal standards for his claims and granted leave to amend the complaint

24
25
26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED;

28

2.

The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;
2

1

3.

2
3
4

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file an
amended comaplint; and

4.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure
to obey a court order.

5
6
7

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

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