Glass v. US Department of Justice et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/27/2017 DENYING 4 Motion for Reconsideration. (Washington, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:16-cv-2907-KJM-CKD PS LEIGH GLASS, Plaintiffs, ORDER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et. al., Defendants. Plaintiff Leigh Glass is not represented by counsel in this case. On February 7, 18 2017, Glass moved this court to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order dismissing the complaint, 19 with leave to amend, under the federal in forma pauperis statute. Mot., ECF No. 4; Order, ECF 20 No. 3. As discussed below, the court DENIES Glass’s motion. 21 Courts review motions to reconsider a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial 22 order under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Local Rule 303(f). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there 24 is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and 25 firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers 26 Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United 27 States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “An order is contrary to law when it fails 28 to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Estate of Stephen E. 1 1 Crawley v. Robinson, No. 13-02042, 2015 WL 3849107, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) (quoting 2 Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008)). 3 Here, Glass claims the magistrate judge’s order is “baseless and contains nothing 4 but meaningless boilerplate verbiage, and thereby, the dismissal of the Complaint must be 5 reversed.” Mot. at 1. The magistrate judge dismissed Glass’s complaint under the in forma 6 pauperis statute, which authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 7 “frivolous or malicious” or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915 (e)(2). The magistrate judge determined Glass’s complaint was “so vague and 9 conclusory” the court was “unable to determine whether [it] is frivolous or fails to state a claim 10 11 for relief.” Order at 2. A review of Glass’s complaint affirms this conclusion. See generally Compl., 12 ECF No. 1. The complaint does not explain the connection between defendants’ alleged 13 misconduct and the statute this conduct purportedly violates. Id. ¶¶ 28–30. Even under the 14 liberal federal pleading standards, the complaint must allege with at least some particularity 15 defendants’ overt acts that support the claim. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s dismissal of 16 the complaint, with leave to amend, was proper and this court does not have a “definite and firm 17 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods., 508 U.S. at 622. 18 Glass’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 This resolves ECF No. 4. 21 DATED: March 27, 2017 22 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?