Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00872/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00872-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

MICHAEL JOSEPH PRATT, NO. 2:02-cv-0872-MCE-JFM P

Petitioner,

v. ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

MIKE EVANS,

Respondent.

----oo0oo----

In bringing the present Request for Reconsideration,

Respondent asks this Court to rescind the Magistrate Judge’s

January 17, 2007 Order expanding the record and setting an

evidentiary hearing with respect to Petitioner’s allegations of

ineffective assistance of counsel in this habeas corpus

proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00872-MCE -JFM Document 62 Filed 03/23/07 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

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

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

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). Under this standard, the Court 1

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 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 permitting expansion of the

record, and authorizing an evidentiary hearing, was clearly

erroneous as that standard has been defined. Respondent’s

request for reconsideration is accordingly DENIED. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00872-MCE -JFM Document 62 Filed 03/23/07 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

The evidentiary hearing shall proceed as scheduled upon an

expanded record as authorized by the Magistrate Judge’s January

17, 2007 Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00872-MCE -JFM Document 62 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 3