Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00012-14/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

COLUMBUS ALLEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTRY, et al.,,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-CV-00012-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER 

12, 2015, ORDER DENYING HIS REQUEST 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 64)

Plaintiff Columbus Allen, Jr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 12, 2015, the assigned Magistrate Judge 

denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s November 12, 2015, order. (Doc. No. 64.) 

Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to serve and file 

objections to a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order within fourteen days. In this Court, this 

type of objection is treated as a motion for reconsideration by the assigned District Judge and 

should be captioned “Request for Reconsideration.” See Local Rule 303. While Plaintiff did not 

file a request for reconsideration, in the interests of justice the Court will review Plaintiff’s 

objections under Local Rule 303.

Case 1:13-cv-00012-DAD-SAB Document 68 Filed 12/11/15 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

2

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)). 

A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v. 

International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 

485, 489 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.” 

Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for 

Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal 

determinations by the magistrate judge. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd 

Cir. 1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th 

Cir. 2002). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, 

case law, or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 

556 (D. Minn. 2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 

2007); Surles v. Air France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see Adolph Coors Co. v. 

Wallace, 570 F.Supp. 202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983).

 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is devoid of grounds entitling him to reconsideration 

of the November 12, 2015 order denying appointment of counsel. The Magistrate Judge properly 

Case 1:13-cv-00012-DAD-SAB Document 68 Filed 12/11/15 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

considered the evidence submitted by Plaintiff along with the record in this case and correctly 

determined exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated to warrant appointment of counsel 

in this case, at this time. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement the ruling does not suffice. United States

v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 64) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00012-DAD-SAB Document 68 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 3