Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02440-16/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

SHERMAN D. MANNING; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-CV-02440-MCE-AC

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Sherman D. Manning’s multiple motions for 

reconsideration (ECF Nos. 110, 111, 123) of the magistrate judge’s order permitting his 

counsel to withdraw and denying Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of new counsel. 

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(f), Plaintiff is entitled to 

reconsideration if the magistrate judge’s decision is either “clearly erroneous or contrary 

to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 128 Filed 07/14/14 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

While Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the magistrate judge, he has failed to identify any 

facts or law supporting his assertion that reconsideration is warranted. Nothing in the 

record indicates to this Court that the magistrate judge clearly erred or misapplied the 

law. Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 110, 111, 123) are thus DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2014

Case 2:12-cv-02440-MCE-AC Document 128 Filed 07/14/14 Page 2 of 2