Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6030 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 8)

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration by the

District Court of the March 31, 2005, order by the Magistrate Judge dismissing the complaint

with leave to amend.

When filing a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to

exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist

for the motion.” The court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a);

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404,

1414 (9th Cir. 1991)

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 9 Filed 05/06/05 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

2

In the March 31, 2005, order, the Magistrate Judge identified the deficiencies in

the complaint. Specifically, the court found that Plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to

state a claim for relief. The complaint was dismissed, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file a

first amended complaint that cured the defects identified in the first amended complaint.

On April 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 31,

2005, order dismissing the complaint. The March 31, 2005, order is not a final order - Plaintiff

was granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has the opportunity to allege

additional facts in a first amended complaint. Failure to do so would result in a recommendation

of dismissal, to which Plaintiff could file objections. 

Because the ruling at issue is not a final order, the motion for reconsideration is

governed by Local Rule 78-230(k). The court finds that plaintiff’s motion fails to meet the

standard set forth above. The ruling by the Magistrate Judge is no clearly erroneous or contrary

to law. As to any new facts or circumstances, the basis of the dismissal of the complaint was

Plaintiff’s failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff has the opportunity

to allege new facts in an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration of the March 31, 2005, order dismissing the first amended complaint is denied. 

This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 9 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2