(PC) Hill v. Escobar et.al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:21-cv-02118-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE 14 ESCOBAR, et al., ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S OCTOBER 24, 2023 ORDER 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 30) 16 17 Plaintiff Cymeyon Hill is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 24, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order directing plaintiff to 21 provide additional information to enable service of the complaint and summons on the defendants 22 named in this action because plaintiff had not provided sufficient information for the U.S. 23 Marshals to serve them. (Doc. No. 28.) On November 6, 2023, plaintiff filed a document with 24 the title “Motion for Reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge Ruling.” 25 (Doc. No. 30.) The undersigned will construe plaintiff’s filing as a “Request for Reconsideration 26 by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling,” as provided by Local Rule 303(c). The 27 standard of review for “all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard set 28 forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” L.R. 303(f) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive pretrial matters may 2 be referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a); see also L.R. 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part 4 of the magistrate judge’s order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” L.R. 5 303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The magistrate judge’s factual determinations are 6 reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are 7 contrary to law. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled 8 on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate 9 judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an 10 element of [the] applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or 11 rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 12 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014). “[R]eview under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly 13 deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 14 Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 15 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 16 In the pending request, plaintiff does not articulate any basis for reconsideration, nor 17 explain how the magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” As the 18 magistrate judge explained in that order, plaintiff has repeatedly failed to provide sufficient 19 information for defendants to be served, and the most recent USM-285 forms that plaintiff 20 submitted on October 16, 2023 still failed to provide accurate addresses for defendants Rios and 21 Bonache. (Doc. No. 28 at 1–2.) Thus, the magistrate judge’s October 24, 2023 order, which 22 provided plaintiff a final opportunity to provide accurate address or contact information for 23 defendants was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 24 Accordingly, 25 1. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s October 24, 2023 26 (Doc. No. 30) is denied; and 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall comply with the 2 directives outlined in the magistrate judge’s October 24, 2023 order. * | Dated: _ December 5, 2023 Da A. 2, oyel ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28