Cohea v. Pliler, et al

Filing 295

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 6/27/2015 DENYING 291 Motion for Reconsideration. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

8

11
12

2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff,

9
10

No.

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

J. COLVIN, D. McCARGAR, S.L.
BAUGHMAN, M.A. MICHEELS, R
YAMAMOTO, SD AKIN, D. ADAMS,
and A GOLD,
Defendants*.

13
14
On

15

June

19,

2015,

Plaintiff

filed

“Objections,”

in

16

which he seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s June 5,

17

2015 denial, in part, of his motion to obtain the attendance of

18

certain incarcerated and unincarcerated witnesses. Specifically,

19

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the motion

20

as

21

Wallace, and Love, and every unincarcerated witness. (Pl.’s Objs.

22

14, ECF No. 291.)

to

incarcerated

witnesses

Local

23

Rule

Judge

shall

303(f)
in

states

Wiley,

“[t]he

Evans,

standard

Judge’s ruling] is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’

26

standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” “A [M]agistrate

27

[J]udge’s

28
1

‘clearly

a

the

25

are

of

that

assigned

findings

[reconsideration

James,

24

factual

use

Chappell,

erroneous’

Magistrate

when

the

1

district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that

2

a mistake has been committed.” Mackey v. Frazier Park Pub. Util.

3

Dist., No. 1:12-CV-00116-LJO-JLT, 2012 WL 5304758, at *2 (E.D.

4

Cal.

5

Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997). “An order ‘is

6

contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant

7

statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Id. (quoting Knutson

8

v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D.

9

Minn. 2008)).

Oct.

10

25,

2012)

(quoting

Sec.

Farms

v.

Int’l

Bhd.

of

Plaintiff has not shown that the Magistrate Judge’s

11

denial

12

attendance was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore,

13

Plaintiff’s

14

DENIED.

15

of

his

motion

request

Dated:

for

to

obtain

the

reconsideration,

June 27, 2015

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

referenced

(ECF

No.

witnesses’

291),

is