Kilgore v. Grannis et al
Filing
52
ORDER denying 51 Motion for reconsideration signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/18/16: The Order of the magistrate judge filed February 26, 2016, is affirmed. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
IVAN KILGORE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:11-cv-1745 TLN KJN (TEMP) P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
DIRECTOR, et al.,
Defendant.
16
17
On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s
18
Order filed February 26, 2016 (ECF No. 50), denying Plaintiff’s motions for counsel. (ECF No.
19
51.) Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless
20
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it does
21
not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
22
Furthermore, the additional “circumstances” listed by Plaintiff in his request for reconsideration
23
still do not meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the
24
appointment of counsel as required by Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
25
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the Order of the
26
magistrate judge filed February 26, 2016, is affirmed. This case is referred back to the assigned
27
magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.
28
1
1
Dated: March 18, 2016
2
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?