IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 31, 2012
YOUNG LOR, PETITIONER,
TOM FELKER, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, JR.Senior United States District Judge
On May 17, 2012, respondent filed a request for reconsideration by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge's order filed May 7, 2012. That order set a limited evidentiary hearing on petitioner's habeas claims that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to his counsel's conflict of interest, and that the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. Petitioner filed an opposition on July 9, 2012. Respondent filed a reply on July 17, 2012 and a "notice of supplemental authority" on July 19, 2012.
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the "new or different facts or circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." The rule derives from the "law of the case" doctrine which provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case "should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in injustice." Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985).
Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed May 7, 2012 is affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.