Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Tyrone Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed January 15, 2016. 

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 230(j) of the Court’s December 14, 2015, order 

denying his motion for contempt of court and sanctions. 

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 

(D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly 

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. 

v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

///

TYRONE THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VIDURRIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S DECEMBER 

14, 2015, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SANCTIONS

[ECF No. 59]

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 61 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

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

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge’s order that are 

either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and 

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive 

pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). 

A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v. 

International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 

489 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe 

and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 

U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal 

determinations by the magistrate judge. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd 

Cir.1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 

2002). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, 

or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. 

Minn. 2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Surles v. 

Air France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 

F.Supp. 202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983). 

Further, in seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show 

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 

shown upon such prior motion, or what grounds exist for the motion.” 

Plaintiff does not raise any new facts, circumstances, or change in the law in his motion which 

would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s December 14, 2015 order. Plaintiff essentially rehashes 

arguments raised in his prior motion which the Court has already reviewed, considered, and ruled 

upon and Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the Court’s ruling and application of the law is not a valid 

basis for reconsideration. As stated in the Court’s December 14, 2015, order Plaintiff does not have a 

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 61 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

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

constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in prison treatment records, when as here, the State 

has a legitimate penological interest in access to them. (ECF No. 53, Order at 5.) Plaintiff has not 

shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s December 14, 2015, order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 61 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 3