Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02729/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02729-3/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 * This matter was decided without oral argument. L.R.

72-303(e).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FONDA WHITFIELD; and THE ESTATE OF )

DEON WHITFIELD, by Fonda Whitfield,) 2:04-cv-2729-GEB-JFM

)

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER*

v. )

) 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

On September 23, 2005, Defendants filed a “Request for

Reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s

Ruling.” A request for reconsideration is permissible under Local

Rule 72-303(c), which requires the party seeking reconsideration to

“designate the ruling . . . objected to and the basis for that

objection.” Defendants assert that “the Magistrate Judge’s [Order]

requires [them] to produce documents for in camera review that are not

in dispute.” (Request for Reconsideration at 2.) This conclusory 

////

Case 2:04-cv-02729-GEB -JFM Document 27 Filed 10/04/05 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

assertion, however, does not provide sufficient “basis” to justify

reconsideration of the challenged portion of the Magistrate Judge’s

order. Therefore, the motion is denied. 

Dated: October 4, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02729-GEB -JFM Document 27 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 2