Cody v. Beard et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 33 Motion to vacate the Court's 4/1/2016 Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/4/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JONATHAN CODY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM (PC)

v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION
TO VACATE THE COURT‟S APRIL 1, 2016
ORDER
(Doc. No. 33)

16
17

On April 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge granted defendants‟ motion to modify the

18

discovery and scheduling order in this matter, and extended the dispositive motion deadline.

19

(Doc. No. 30.) This was done to allow time for the undersigned to consider the magistrate

20

judge‟s findings and recommendation on defendants‟ motion for summary judgment based upon

21

plaintiff‟s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit and so that the

22

parties would have the benefit of the undersigned‟s decision on that pending motion before filing

23

motions for summary judgment on the merits of the case.
Plaintiff now seeks an order vacating the magistrate judge‟s April 1, 2016 order. (Doc.

24
25

No. 33.) Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred in granting defendants‟ motion to modify

26

the scheduling order before he could file any opposition to that motion.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

ANALYSIS

2

A motion to reconsider a magistrate judge‟s ruling is reviewed under the “clearly

3

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of

4

Civil Procedure 72(a). As such, the court only set aside a magistrate judge‟s order if it is either

5

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

6

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

7

matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).
A magistrate judge‟s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” only when the district judge

8
9

is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v.

10

International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D.

11

485, 489 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This “„clearly erroneous‟ standard is significantly deferential.”

12

Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for

13

Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).
The “contrary to law” standard allows for independent review of purely legal

14
15

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

16

Cir.1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489. “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or

17

misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue

18

Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.

19

Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Surles v. Air France, 210 F. Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y.

20

2001); see also Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F. Supp. 202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983).1

21
22

The court has reviewed plaintiff‟s motion and the arguments presented therein do not
warrant reconsideration of the magistrate judge‟s April 1, 2016 order. Plaintiff has not shown

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Of course, “[a] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear
error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v.
Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, “[a] party seeking
reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court‟s decision, and
„recapitulation . . .‟ of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision.”
United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting
Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).
2

1

clear error with respect to that order or any other grounds for relief. Indeed, the assigned

2

magistrate judge later considered plaintiff‟s opposition to defendants‟ motion to modify the

3

scheduling order, and overruled his objections for good reason. (Doc. No. 32.) Accordingly,

4

plaintiff‟s motion to vacate the magistrate judge‟s April 1, 2016 order (Doc. No. 33) is denied.

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7

Dated:

May 4, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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