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)

Download PDF
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?