Penilton v. Benton et al
ORDER GRANTING 19 MOTION for permission to reinstate complaint filed by Willie B Penilton; Case reopened; Motions terminated; amended complaint lodged on 7/31/06, document no. 20, to be filed; order signed by Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/12/06. (Rooney, M)
(PC) Penilton v. Benton et al
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 GEORGE BENTON et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 27, 2006, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's 18 Findings and Recommendations and dismissed this action for Plaintiff's failure to comply with 19 the court's order to file an amended complaint. On July 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for 20 reconsideration, along with a proposed amended complaint. 21 problems obtaining copies of documents and accessing the legal library. 22 The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 23 24 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make 25 new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood 26 27 court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 28 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIE B. PENILTON IV,
1:05-0691-AWI-SMS-P ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RE-OPEN CASE AND FILE LODGED AMENDED COMPLAINT ORDER REFERRING ACTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE / (Document #19)
Plaintiff claims that he has had
1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.1992).
Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1116 (D.Ariz.1998). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." In his motion, Plaintiff claims that he did not receive all of the court's orders giving him the deadlines for filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff also provides evidence of difficulties he has encountered at the law library while prosecuting this action. Plaintiff is advised to pay careful attention to all court deadlines. However, in the interests of justice, the court will reopen this action because the action was only dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders. According, the court orders that: 1. 2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-open this action and file the amended complaint lodged on July 31, 2006; and 3. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 October 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?