Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05809/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05809-2/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS HENDERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

J.D. SCOTT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-5809 AWI LJO P

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN

OBJECTION 

(Document #39)

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 16, 2005, the

court dismissed this action. On July 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff also

filed a motion for transmission of the court’s records to the Ninth Circuit. On July 28, 2005, the

Clerk of the Court processed Plaintiff’s appeal and prepared this court’s records for appeal. On

August 3, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a minute order stating Plaintiffs’ request for

transmission of records was moot because the appeal had already been processed.

On August 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion in objection regarding the August 3, 2005

minute order. 

Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to serve and file

objections to a Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive order within ten days. In this court, this type of

objections are treated as a motion for reconsideration by the assigned District Court Judge of the

Magistrate Judge’s order and should be captioned “Request for Reconsideration.” See Local

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 40 Filed 10/17/05 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

27

28 2

Rule 72-303. While Plaintiff’s August 17, 2005 motion is not entitled a motion for

reconsideration, in the interests of justice the court will review Plaintiff’s objection under Local

Rule 72-303. Motions to reconsider 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). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing

nature to induce the court to reverse its 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). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-

230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

the motion.” The 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); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(a); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME Hosp., Inc., 929

F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The records in this action have been processed as required by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Rules of the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff

was not required to file any motion for the transmittal of records. Thus, the Magistrate Judge

did not err in denying Plaintiff’s motion for transmittal of records. Plaintiff may proceed with

his appeal in the Ninth Circuit without filing any additional motions in this court. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s August 16, 2005 motion in

objection is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 40 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2