Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00789-6/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 GRIGSBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MUNGUIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0789 GEB AC P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 9, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings 

and recommendations and an order that granted, in pertinent part, plaintiff’s motion to compel 

production of CDCR’s excessive force report related to the incident that forms the basis of 

plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 66. On March 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion for

reconsideration of this portion of the March 9, 2016 order. ECF No. 68. Defendants request that

the district judge reject the ruling or, in the alternative, that defendants be granted the opportunity 

to file objections. Id. at 2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 303, a district judge may reconsider any matter determined in an 

action by the assigned magistrate judge. Local Rule 303(g). An order of the magistrate judge 

shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f). While this 

court finds that the magistrate judge’s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, it 

does appear that further briefing and an opportunity to review the subject report in camera would 

Case 2:14-cv-00789-GEB-AC Document 72 Filed 04/14/16 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

be helpful in addressing the concerns of all parties.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED IN 

PART. Within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, defendants shall: (1)

submit the excessive force report to the magistrate judge for in camera review, and (2) file and 

serve their objections to disclosing the report to plaintiff. Plaintiff may file and serve a reply 

within fourteen (14) days after service of defendants’ objections. Upon review of the subject 

report and the parties’ further briefing, the magistrate judge should decide whether a new order 

issues addressing de novo plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the report. In all other 

respects, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-00789-GEB-AC Document 72 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 2