Lal v. Felker et al

Filing 242

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/7/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 227 Motion for Reconsideration of 218 . (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AZHAR LAL,

12
13
14
15

Civ. No. S-07-2060 KJM EFB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

T. FELKER, et al.,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prison inmate, has filed a motion to reconsider the magistrate

18

judge’s order of December 17, 2013. ECF No. 227. After considering plaintiff’s arguments, the

19

court DENIES the motion.

20

I. BACKGROUND

21

On December 17, 2013, the magistrate judge granted defendants’ unopposed

22

motion to file a second dispositive motion, gave plaintiff sixty days in which to file his

23

opposition, limited the opposition to fifty pages, and denied plaintiff’s request for a court order

24

directing the librarian to allow him to make copies in excess of 50 pages. ECF No. 213.

25

On January 1, 2014, plaintiff mailed his motion for reconsideration of that order.

26

ECF No. 227. He explains that he had prepared a 58-page opposition to defendant’s second

27

motion and mailed it before he received the order restricting his opposition to 50 pages.

28

Although his current motion is not particularly clear, it appears he may be objecting to the page
1

1

limits. He also requests further discovery, suggesting that defendants have not disclosed

2

pertinent information. ECF No. 227 at 3.

3

II. ANALYSIS

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs district judges to consider timely

5

objections to nondispositive pretrial orders issued by magistrate judges and to “modify or set

6

aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also Local Rule

7

303(f) & 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “‘A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is

8

evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and

9

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr.

10

Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. United States

11

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “[R]eview under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is

12

significantly deferential . . . .” Id. at 623. “To succeed [on a motion for reconsideration], a party

13

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

14

decision.” Enriquez v. City of Fresno, No. CV F 10–0581 AWI DLB, 2011 WL 1087149, at *1,

15

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011). Furthermore, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party

16

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

17

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local

18

Rule 230(j)(3). “A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or present

19

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’”

20

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)

21

(quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).

22

Under Local Rule 303(c), the party seeking reconsideration “shall specifically

23

designate the ruling, or part thereof, objected to and the basis of that objection.” Plaintiff has not

24

complied with the rule, leaving the court to guess what portion of the December 17 order he is

25

challenging. If he seeks reconsideration of the 50-page limit, this court does not find the

26

limitation to be clearly erroneous.

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

As noted above, plaintiff includes a request for additional discovery. However, as

2

the magistrate judge’s December 17 order does not address discovery, the request is not properly

3

before this court as part of a motion for reconsideration.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 227,

5

is denied.

6

DATED: May 7, 2014.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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