Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00611/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00611-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES S. POBURSKY, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MADERA COUNTY, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv0611 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Document 196)

Plaintiffs James S. and Wanda Pobursky (“Plaintiffs”) are proceeding pro se in this

action. 

On June 1, 2010, the Court lifted the stay of discovery because the premise upon which

the stay was issued, Mr. Pobursky’s incarceration, had ended. By order dated June 16, 2010, the

Court set the depositions of Plaintiffs and their children for July 6 and 7, 2010. The June 16,

2010, order supercedes the prior orders relating to the depositions.

On June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs requested that the Court reconsider its order lifting the stay. 

Although Mr. Pobursky is no longer incarcerated, he contends that there are “still major

repercussions as to the loss of over four (4) months of financial support for his large family.” He

also contends that “family time is needed emotionally, as well as for urgent family issues.” 

Pursuant to Local Rule 303, the standard of review in a motion for reconsideration of a

ruling by a Magistrate Judge is the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

1

Case 1:07-cv-00611-AWI-DLB Document 200 Filed 07/12/10 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

In the present case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the

Magistrate Judge’s decision to lift the stay was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. While

Plaintiffs may continue to feel the impact of Mr. Pobursky’s incarceration, the basis upon which

the stay was imposed no longer exists. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 11, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

The depositions were set for July 6 and July 7, 2010, before this Court. Defendants have, however, agreed

1

to allow Plaintiffs to reschedule the depositions for a later date.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00611-AWI-DLB Document 200 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2