IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 21, 2012
RONALD BROOK, PLAINTIFF,
V. SINGH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
On November 5, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed October 29, 2012, denying plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. 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.
However, as plaintiff asserts that he is unable to obtain the CDCR identification numbers for the eight inmate witnesses listed in the Pretrial Order (Dkt. No 97 at 7), the court will direct defendants to supply these numbers. If plaintiff is otherwise unable to comply with the Pretrial Order due to circumstances beyond his control (see Dkt. No. 101), he may bring this to the court's attention at the trial confirmation hearing. However, plaintiff is expected to comply to the fullest extent possible.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed October 29, 2012, is affirmed; and
2. Defendants are directed to file with the court the CDCR identification numbers for the eight inmate witnesses listed on p. 7 in the Pretrial Order as soon as practicable, no later than ten weeks before trial, or show good cause why they are unable to do so.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.