Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293-18/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

RONALD MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLISON, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:11-cv-00293 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 107)

Plaintiff Ronald Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2014, the Court 

granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment. Plaintiff’s appeal is 

now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 12, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to consolidate this action with two others 

pending before this Court- Arline v. Clark, et al., 1:11-cv-00420 LJO SAB, and Lopez v. Allison, 

et al., 1:13-cv-02010 LJO SAB. On June 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston issued 

an order relating these two cases.

As to this action, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to consolidate without prejudice on 

April 19, 2016, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to do so given the pending appeal.

///

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 112 Filed 07/05/16 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

On April 21, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling. Plaintiff 

opposed the motion on May 5, 2016. Defendants did not file a reply and the motion is deemed 

submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

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)). 

Given that the other two actions have been related and this action is on appeal, there is no 

benefit to exercising jurisdiction in this action. Defendants may move to consolidate/relate if and 

when this action is remanded.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 112 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 2