Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02708/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02708-16/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL ANTHONY HOLLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2708 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a prisoner suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He filed a document on November 15, 2007, which he styled as a “Motion for

Clarification.” The motion reargues one of plaintiff’s discovery motions that the court already

has denied.

On March 29, 2007, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. On April 9,

2007, plaintiff requested reconsideration of that denial. On November 5, 2007, the court

reconsidered the earlier ruling, vacated the March 29, 2007, order, and denied the motion to

compel on the ground that the discovery plaintiff sought was served on defendants before they

appeared in this action. The current motion demonstrates that plaintiff understands the contents

of the November 5 order, but simply restates his argument why he requires the requested

discovery. Thus, his motion for clarification is, in fact, a motion for reconsideration.

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 87 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 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

2

A magistrate judge’s order will not be reversed unless the moving party demonstrates

that it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 72-303(f). Nowhere in his motion

does plaintiff show either that the law relied upon was incorrect or that he in fact served his

discovery requests on defendants after they appeared in this action. He seems to fault the court

for not modifying the schedule so as to permit him to serve his discovery requests anew. 

However, he did not in the April 9, 2007, request seek such modification. Thus, plaintiff has not

demonstrated that the November 5, 2007, order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 15, 2007, motion for clarification is construed as a motion for

reconsideration; and

2. Upon reconsideration, the November 5, 2007, order is affirmed.

DATED: December 14, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 87 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2