Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01192-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

DARREL L. ESPINOSA, No. 2:06-cv-1192-MCE-GGH-PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

SCOTT MARSHALL, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

In bringing the present Request for Reconsideration,

Plaintiff Darrel L. Espinosa (“Plaintiff”) asks this Court to

reverse the Magistrate Judge’s January 26, 2007 Order requiring

that Plaintiff post a vexatious litigant bond in the amount of

$10,000.00 before this action may further proceed.

///

///

///

///

///

///

 

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 83 Filed 03/08/07 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

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district 1

court judge to “modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate

judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may

reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the

magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

2

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the

assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 72-303(f), as

specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the Court 1

must accept the Magistrate Judge’s decision unless it has a

“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers

Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the

Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge

were at least plausible, after considering the record in its

entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it

would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. &

Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141

(9th Cir. 1997).

After reviewing the entire file, this Court cannot say that

the magistrate judge’s decision relating this case to the

previously filed cases was clearly erroneous as that standard has

been defined. As the magistrate judge points out, this is the

fourth lawsuit filed by Plaintiff relating to the foreclosure on

and sale of his parents’ property in Colusa County, California. 

Plaintiff’s last case was terminated after he was found to be a

vexatious litigant. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 83 Filed 03/08/07 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

Plaintiff failed to overturn the magistrate judge’s previous

order declaring him to be vexatious, but has filed yet another

lawsuit on the same issues. Under these circumstances, the

vexatious litigant bond imposed by the magistrate judge was not

in error.

For all these reasons Plaintiff’s Request for

Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01192-MCE -GGH Document 83 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 3