Dunmore v. Dunmore

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 04/03/12 ORDERING that plaintiff's 23 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; all provisions of the Magistrate Judge's 19 Order remain in effect, except that plaintiff's deadline for filing an amended complaint is EXTENDED to 10 days following the date this Order is filed. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ----oo0oo---- 12 13 STEVEN G. DUNMORE, No. 2:11-cv-02867-MCE-GGH PS 14 15 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 16 17 JEREMY A. DUNMORE, et al., Defendants. 18 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 21 In bringing the present Ex Parte Motion or Request for 22 Reconsideration (ECF No. 23), Plaintiff asks this Court to 23 rescind the Magistrate Judge’s January 13, 2012 Order (ECF No. 24 19) dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint, with leave to amend, on 25 grounds that said Complaint is more than 200 pages in length and 26 does not set forth a short and plain statement of the claims 27 showing entitlement to relief, as required by Federal Rule of 28 Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 1 Plaintiff further asks that this Court extend the deadline for 2 filing an Amended Complaint to ten (10) days following 3 adjudication of its reconsideration request. 4 extent Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint and need to serve 5 additional parties, he requests that the Clerk issue additional 6 summons to permit him to do so. 7 Finally, to the In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the 8 assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to 9 law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 303(f), as 10 specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 12 must accept the Magistrate Judge’s decision unless it has a 13 “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 14 Concrete Pipe & Products of Calif., Inc. v. Construction Laborers 15 Pension Trust for So. Calif., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). 16 Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge 17 were at least plausible, after considering the record in its 18 entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it 19 would have weighed the evidence differently. 20 Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 21 (9th Cir. 1997). 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// Under this standard, the Court If the Phoenix Eng. & 25 1 26 27 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district court judge to “modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 2 1 Having read and considered the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, as 2 well as Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and his 3 separately filed objections to said ruling (ECF No. 20), this 4 Court does not find the ruling to be clearly erroneous as that 5 standard has been defined above. 6 Judge rulings were proper and defined appropriate parameters for 7 presenting an amended complaint in this matter. 8 the imagination can a 200 page complaint, with some 46 pages of 9 additional exhibits, be considered a short and plain statement of 10 the case as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). 11 Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is accordingly DENIED. 12 provisions of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 19) remain in 13 effect, except that Plaintiff’s deadline for filing an amended 14 complaint is extended to ten (10) days following the date this 15 Order is electronically filed. 16 amended complaint adds additional parties, the Clerk is directed 17 to issue the necessary summons for service upon such parties. 18 19 To the contrary, the Magistrate By no stretch of All Moreover, to the extent any IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2012 20 21 22 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?