Opinion
1:19-cv-00400-JLT-GSA-PC
11-14-2022
ETUATE SEKONA, Plaintiff, v. R. PEREZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT JUDGE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ISSUED ON OCTOBER 12, 2022 (DOC. 66.)
The magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, discharging the Court's order to show cause, and addressing the matter of two unserved defendants by indicating that it would, by separate order, direct the U.S. Marshal to attempt re-service using the assistance of CDCR's Legal Affairs Department and a Special Investigator. (Doc. 64.) Plaintiff “objects” to this order, indicating, among other things, that Plaintiff disagrees with the magistrate judge's decision to deny the appointment of counsel to assist Plaintiff in locating two defendants to enable service of process. (Doc. 66.) The Court construes Plaintiff's objection as a request for reconsideration.
Local Rule 303 provides that “[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically designat[ing] the ruling, or party thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection.'” Local Rule 303(c). “The standard that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” Local Rule 303(f).
The Court does not find the magistrate judge's order to be erroneous or contrary to law. The magistrate judge carefully and reasonably explained why appointment of counsel was not appropriate at this time in this case. Likewise, the Court finds no error in the remaining aspects of the October 12, 2022 order. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed on October 20, 2022, will be DENIED.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration (Doc. 66.) by the district judge of the magistrate judge's October 12, 2022 order denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, filed on October 20, 2022, (Doc. 64) is DENIED.
2. This case is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.