Gonzales et al v. Cate et al

Filing 116

ORDER DENYING 115 Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/20/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK GONZALES,

12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:06-cv-01420-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

13

(ECF No. 115)
MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Frank Gonzales, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on October 13, 2006 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

19

1983. (ECF No. 1.) The matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF

20

No. 37) against Defendants Lantz, Garrison, Nichols, Deathriage, and Govea for First

21

and Eighth Amendment violations and against Defendants Garza, Franco, Mayes,

22

Cate, Fernando, Marrujo, and Fuentes for a First Amendment violation. (ECF No. 62.)

23

On July 16, 2013, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No.

24

109) for an order directing the Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) warden to permit

25

inspection and testing of premises by Crystal M. Moore and an order for a forty-five day

26

extension of the current discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 115) in support of the motion.1

27
28

1

Defendants’ response to the motion was untimely and not considered by the Court in its July 16, 2013 ruling. See ECF
No. 114 at n.1.

1

1

The reply was not timely filed. Local Rule 230(l).

2

Plaintiff’s reply, construed as a request for reconsideration, shall be denied. The

3

reply does not acknowledge the Court’s July 16th order or address considerations and

4

findings therein. Plaintiff does not provide any newly discovered evidence, point to any

5

clear error, or suggest there was an intervening change in the controlling law that would

6

require the Court to reconsider its July 16, 2013 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Harvest v.

7

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008); Local Rule 230(j). Plaintiff does not explain why

8

the reply was not timely filed. His mere disagreement with the Court’s decision is not

9

grounds for reconsideration.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

10
11

reply (ECF No. 115), construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 16, 2013

12

order, is DENIED.

13
14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

20

August 20, 2013

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

21

Michael J. Seng

ci4d6

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2