Strohmeyer v. Belanger et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 32 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
______________________________________
)
)
JEREMY JOSEPH STROHMEYER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
K. BELANGER et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:14-cv-00661-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

Plaintiff sued Defendants in this Court in pro se for various alleged civil rights violations.

14

On January 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

15

Plaintiff now challenges that order under Rule 72(a).

16
17
18
19
20
21

Rule 72(a) permits a district court judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive ruling that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is
referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must
promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written
order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within
14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in
the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or
is contrary to law.

22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Local R. IB 3-1(a). Rule 72(a) institutes an abuse of discretion

23
standard. See Grimes v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United

24
1 of 2

1

States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988) (“We still must determine, however,

2

whether the court abused its discretion in issuing its order based on the facts before it which are

3

supported by the record. Under the abuse of discretion standard, we cannot simply substitute our

4

judgment for that of the district court, but must be left with the definite and firm conviction that

5

the court committed a clear error of judgment in reaching its conclusion after weighing the

6

relevant factors.”)).

7

The Court does not find the Magistrate Judge’s ruling to have been in clear error or

8

contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge explained that exceptional circumstances warranting

9

appointment of counsel are not present, but only circumstances faced by most incarcerated

10

persons. The Court agrees.
CONCLUSION

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order (ECF
No. 32) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 7th 17th day of February, 2017.
Dated thisThis day of February, 2016.

16
17
18

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
2 of 2