Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00378-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 15, 2013. On 

October 18, 2013, the Court issued a screening order dismissing the complaint, with leave to 

amend, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 10.) On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for reconsideration to the District Judge on the Court‟s screening order. (ECF No. 11.)

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. 

Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 

441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly 

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water 

Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part 

on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge‟s ruling under the “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge‟s order that are 

DION ANDERSON

Plaintiff

v.

M. KIMBRELL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00378-AWI-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ORDER REQUIRNG PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 11)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00378-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/03/14 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

either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and 

Cnty. 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” when the district court is left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. 

of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 489 (C.D. Cal. 

2003). The “„clearly erroneous‟ standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. 

of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623, 113 S.Ct. 2264 

(1993).

The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary 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; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 

2002). “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 Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 

F.Supp. 202, 205 (N.D. Cal. 1983).

The Magistrate Judge‟s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Plaintiff 

cites to Brewer v. Wilkenson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993) in support of his motion for 

reconsideration. Plaintiff correctly notes his right to access to the courts. However, the 

Magistrate Judge correctly dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to show that 

Defendants were the proximate cause of an actual injury. The Court previously provided Plaintiff 

with the appropriate legal standards for his claims and granted leave to amend the complaint

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

Case 1:13-cv-00378-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/03/14 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

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file an

amended comaplint; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00378-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/03/14 Page 3 of 3