Carpenter v. Sullivan et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Request for Reconsideration 13 , 14 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/23/09. (Hellings, J)

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 I. BACKGROUND Willie Lee Carpenter ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on January 8, 2007, and the complaint was dismissed as duplicative on April 17, 2007. On October 17, 2008, plaintiff filed a Request to Dismiss Filing Fees and a Motion from Judgment or Order. (Docs. 13, 14.) In both documents, plaintiff requests the court to reconsider its order of April 17, 2007, which denied plaintiff's motion to rescind the court's order collecting the filing fee for this action. (Doc. 9.) II. DISCUSSION 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). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a 1 v. SULLIVAN, et al., Defendants. / WILLIE LEE CARPENTER, Plaintiff, 1:07-cv-00029-OWW-SMS-P ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docs. 13, 14.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

party show that 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." Local Rule 78-230(k)(3). Plaintiff argues that he should not be required to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action, which was dismissed as duplicative by the court on April 17, 2007, because he did not intend to file two identical cases. The court finds no basis upon which to reconsider its order. Plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances which did not exist at the time the court made its ruling. Plaintiff has simply recited, in greater detail, the chain of events that caused two identical actions to be filed by the court. Plaintiff has not added any facts to refute the evidence previously found and considered by the court. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reconsideration, filed on October 17, 2008, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 23, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2