Stanley v. Calderon

Filing 990

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/23/15 ORDERING that the Court DENIES Mr. Leavitts Request for Reconsideration. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GERALD F. STANLEY,

11
12
13
14

No.

2:95-cv-1500 JAM CKD

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER DENYING MR. LEAVITT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of
California State Prison at
San Quentin,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Before the Court is Attorney Jack Leavitt’s Request for

18

Reconsideration (Doc. #982) of Magistrate Judge Delaney’s

19

December 19, 2014 Order (Doc. #972).

20

Magistrate Judge’s award of sanctions, arguing that he has “acted

21

properly in this litigation.”
I.

22

Mr. Leavitt challenges the

Mot. at 2.
OPINION

23

A.

Legal Standard

24

Sanctions are non-dispositive matters which may be imposed

25

by magistrate judges.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Grimes v. City &

26

Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991).

27

Because sanctions are non-dispositive matters, review of

28

sanctions issued by magistrate judges is governed by the “clearly
1

1

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 236(b)(1)(A).

3

set aside or modified unless the findings of fact are clearly

4

erroneous or the conclusions are contrary to law.

5

P. 72(a).

6

reviewing court is left “with the definite and firm conviction

7

that the [magistrate judge’s] key findings are mistaken.”

8

v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 243 (2001).

9

B.

10

Therefore, a magistrate judge’s order cannot be

Fed. R. Civ.

The order should be modified or set aside only if the

Easley

Analysis

This Court finds that Magistrate Judge Delaney’s findings

11

were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The terms of

12

Magistrate Judge Hollows’ October 22, 2002 Order are unambiguous:

13

“Attorney Leavitt is not permitted to appear in this action, and

14

he shall file no further pleadings in this action[.]”

15

at 9.

16

similarly unequivocal: “[U]nless he is specifically ordered to do

17

so, Mr. Leavitt is barred from filing anything further in this

18

case. . . . [Leavitt] is warned that any further filings he makes

19

with this court may subject him, again, to sanctions.”

20

at 2.

21

the motion for sanctions against him, Magistrate Judge Delaney

22

crafted a narrow exception to these prohibitions: “Mr. Leavitt’s

23

response shall be limited to explaining why this court should not

24

impose sanctions and/or find him in contempt of court.

25

addition, Mr. Leavitt may request oral argument.” Doc. #949 at 1.

26

Magistrate Judge Delaney found that Mr. Leavitt violated

Doc. #365

Magistrate Judge Delaney’s October 3, 2014 Order is

Doc. #940

On October 29, 2014, in ordering Mr. Leavitt to respond to

In

27

these orders with five separate filings (or attempted filings,

28

which were served on Petitioner’s counsel): (1) Request for
2

1

Relief to Protect Confidentiality and to Prevent Continuation of

2

Unethical Procedures (Doc. #933) filed on August 21, 2014 and

3

removed by order of the court on October 3, 2014 (Doc. #940);

4

(2) Declaration of Gerald Stanley regarding Attorney

5

Representation – prepared and served by Mr. Leavitt (Doc. #937);

6

(3) Motion to Dismiss Sanctions Motion (not filed, pursuant to

7

Doc. #962); (4) Motion for Court Order to Assure Gerald F.

8

Stanley’s Presence at Hearing on Sanctions Motion (not filed,

9

pursuant to Doc. #962); and (5) Declaration of Gerald F. Stanley

10

Opposing Sanctions Motion and Requesting Presence at Hearing (not

11

filed, pursuant to Doc. #962).

12

both Magistrate Judge Hollows’ and Magistrate Judge Delaney’s

13

orders, it cannot be said that Magistrate Judge Delaney’s

14

findings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

15

Given the unambiguous nature of

The Court further finds that the myriad issues and arguments

16

raised by Mr. Leavitt are not relevant and raise no issues of

17

material fact.

18

(9th Cir. 1999).

See United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 996

19
20
21
22
23

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Mr.
Leavitt’s Request for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 23, 2015

24
25
26
27
28
3