Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00300-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY,

NO. CIV. S-06-300 LKK/EFB

Petitioner,

v.

TOM CAREY, Warden, O R D E R

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s September 14, 2006 order denying the motion for

entry of default judgment. The motion was denied because “through

clerical oversight, the [habeas] application and the June 16, 2006

order [directing respondents to answer within forty-five days],

were served on the wrong assistant attorney general.” Order at 1.

A non-dispositive pretrial motion referred to the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is reviewed under a

clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303(f); United States v. Raddatz, 447

U.S. 667, 673 (1980). Under this standard, the magistrate judge’s

Case 2:06-cv-00300-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 12/20/06 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

decision is affirmed unless “the reviewing court on the entire

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333

U.S. 364, 395 (1948). 

The denial of the motion for default judgment was not clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the motion for

reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00300-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2