Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01239-4/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

JONATHAN CODY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

TO VACATE THE COURT‟S APRIL 1, 2016 

ORDER

(Doc. No. 33)

On April 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge granted defendants‟ motion to modify the 

discovery and scheduling order in this matter, and extended the dispositive motion deadline. 

(Doc. No. 30.) This was done to allow time for the undersigned to consider the magistrate 

judge‟s findings and recommendation on defendants‟ motion for summary judgment based upon 

plaintiff‟s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit and so that the 

parties would have the benefit of the undersigned‟s decision on that pending motion before filing

motions for summary judgment on the merits of the case.

Plaintiff now seeks an order vacating the magistrate judge‟s April 1, 2016 order. (Doc. 

No. 33.) Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred in granting defendants‟ motion to modify 

the scheduling order before he could file any opposition to that motion. 

/////

/////

Case 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 05/05/16 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

ANALYSIS

A motion to reconsider a magistrate judge‟s ruling is reviewed under the “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 72(a). As such, the court only set aside a magistrate judge‟s order if it is 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 non-dispositive pretrial 

matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

A magistrate judge‟s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” only when the district judge 

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). This “„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 for independent 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. “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 also Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F. Supp. 202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983).1

The court has reviewed plaintiff‟s motion and the arguments presented therein do not 

warrant reconsideration of the magistrate judge‟s April 1, 2016 order. Plaintiff has not shown 

 

1

 Of course, “[a] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 

error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 

Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, “[a] party seeking 

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court‟s decision, and 

„recapitulation . . .‟ of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision.”

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

Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)).

Case 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 05/05/16 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

clear error with respect to that order or any other grounds for relief. Indeed, the assigned 

magistrate judge later considered plaintiff‟s opposition to defendants‟ motion to modify the 

scheduling order, and overruled his objections for good reason. (Doc. No. 32.) Accordingly, 

plaintiff‟s motion to vacate the magistrate judge‟s April 1, 2016 order (Doc. No. 33) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01239-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 3