Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00188/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00188-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

----oo0oo----

ZENOVY T. TYMOCHKO,

NO. CIV. S 03-0188 MCE PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

SANDRA GLASER, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

In bringing the present request for reconsideration,

Plaintiff Zenovy T. Tymochko (“Plaintiff”) asks this Court to

reconsider the vacate the April 4, 2005 Order issued by

Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski (hereinafter “Magistrate

Judge”) which imposed sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount

of $1000.00 for his vexatious and harassing conduct in initiating

and pursuing this action. Since filing the instant

reconsideration request on April 18, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a

letter dated May 4, 2005 which attached a personal check in the

amount of $1000.00 given that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:03-cv-00188-MCE -PAN Document 88 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 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

1Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district

court judge to “modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate

judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may

reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the

magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

2

Order requiring that payment of the imposed sanction be made

within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff has nonetheless requested

that the Clerk of the Court refrain from cashing his check

pending resolution of his request for reconsideration. 

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the

assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 72-303(f), as

specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Under this standard, the Court

must accept the Magistrate Judge’s decision unless it has a

“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

Concrete Pipe & Products of Calif., Inc. v. Construction Laborers

Pension Trust for So. Calif., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the

Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge

were at least plausible, after considering the record in its

entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it

would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. &

Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141

(9th Cir. 1997).

After reviewing the evidence, this Court cannot say

that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous as

that standard has been defined. The magistrate judge had

authority to issue monetary sanctions for harassing and vexatious

conduct pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the

Case 2:03-cv-00188-MCE -PAN Document 88 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 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

3

court’s inherent authority. Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d

1118, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002). The Magistrate Judge articulated his

reasons for concluding that Plaintiff’s conduct here was

vexatious and harassing, and this Court cannot say that those

reasons are clearly erroneous.

Consequently Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is

denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to negotiate the personal

check submitted by Plaintiff forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: MAY 9, 2005

__________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:03-cv-00188-MCE -PAN Document 88 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 3