Schuyler

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE STEPHEN KING, No. 2:23-cv-2360-KJM-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHARLES SCHUYLER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On October 6, 2025, petitioner filed a motion requesting permission to file a motion for 18 reconsideration. ECF No. 42. The court construes this motion as a request for reconsideration of 19 the Magistrate Judge’s previous order under Local Rule 303(c). In that order, the Magistrate 20 Judge denied petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 37. Under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may reconsider and set 22 aside a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter such as this one if the order is 23 “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Here, the Magistrate Judge correctly identified and 24 applied the relevant law and made no errors. See Trotter v. Bunnell, 42 F.3d 1402 (9th Cir. 1994) 25 (summarizing relevant legal standard); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th…