Thompson v. Vidurria et al

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING 59 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's December 14, 2015, Order Denying Motion for Contempt of Court and Sanctions signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/20/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRONE THOMPSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
VIDURRIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S DECEMBER
14, 2015, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SANCTIONS
[ECF No. 59]

Plaintiff Tyrone Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed January 15, 2016.

20

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 230(j) of the Court’s December 14, 2015, order

21

denying his motion for contempt of court and sanctions.

22

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

23

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441

24

(D.C. Cir. 1987).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///

A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

Security Farms v.

9

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

10

489 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe

11

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

12

U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Further, in seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show

22

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

23

shown upon such prior motion, or what grounds exist for the motion.”

24

Plaintiff does not raise any new facts, circumstances, or change in the law in his motion which

25

would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s December 14, 2015 order. Plaintiff essentially rehashes

26

arguments raised in his prior motion which the Court has already reviewed, considered, and ruled

27

upon and Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the Court’s ruling and application of the law is not a valid

28

basis for reconsideration. As stated in the Court’s December 14, 2015, order Plaintiff does not have a
2

1

constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in prison treatment records, when as here, the State

2

has a legitimate penological interest in access to them. (ECF No. 53, Order at 5.) Plaintiff has not

3

shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

4

reconsideration of the Court’s December 14, 2015, order is DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 20, 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