Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589-20/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOB BEJARANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEST, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:11-cv-00589 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 123)

Plaintiff Bob Bejarano (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action 

on April 12, 2011.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations regarding 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the most recent extension of time, Plaintiff’s 

objections are due on or about July 17, 2016.

On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice in which he questioned why a magistrate judge 

other than the one assigned to this action signed the Findings and Recommendations. The Court 

denied the motion on May 18, 2016.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the ruling.

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 124 Filed 06/29/16 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

DISCUSSION

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). 

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

In denying Plaintiff’s motion, the Magistrate Judge explained that while specific judges 

are assigned to an action as a matter of Court administration, the District Court judges’ referral 

power is general. 28 U.S.C. § 636. Therefore, even though one magistrate judge may be 

assigned to an action, another magistrate judge may act on an order within the action. 

He now argues that Judge Snyder gave her opinions, “had the hearing,” and ruled on the 

Findings and Recommendations without the parties consent. ECF No. 123, at 2. However, the 

Magistrate Judge correctly explained that other magistrate judges may act within action, which 

includes ruling on matters. Contrary to Plaintiff’s belief, the consent of the parties is not required 

where another magistrate rules on an issue. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 124 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2