Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02868/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02868-26/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER HOWARD WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-2868-MCE-AC-P

ORDER

In bringing the present Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 157), Plaintiff Walter 

Howard White (“Plaintiff”) asks this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s April 16, 

2015 Order (ECF No. 126) which adjudicated various requests in this matter made by 

both Plaintiff and Defendants. Said Order made numerous findings, and included rulings 

that1) granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ protective order requests as to 71 

of Plaintiff’s 99 document production requests, 2) granted in part and denied in part

Plaintiff’s request for issuance of 10 subpoena duces tecum; 3) denied Plaintiff’s 

previously rejected request to file a Second Amended Complaint; and 4) denied 

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 1 The Order further admonished Plaintiff 

 1 While Plaintiff argues that his May 10, 2015 stay request was never adjudicated, the Magistrate 

Judge’s July 14, 2015 Order (ECF No. 153) denied Plaintiff’s May 18, 2015 request in that regard (ECF 

No. 143).

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 180 Filed 03/08/16 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

from filing excessive documents that have unduly encumbered the action and consumed 

an inordinate amount of the court’s limited resources. 

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 

303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A).2 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 & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 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 entire file, this Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge’s 

decision outlined above were clearly erroneous. As the Court already noted with respect 

to Plaintiff’s additional reconsideration request (see Order, ECF No. 179, filed February 

4, 2016) the Magistrate Judge’s decision carefully weighed the competing concerns in 

this matter and offered a well-reasoned rationale for the determinations made therein. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 157) is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016

 2 Federal 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, under 

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.”

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 180 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2