Fearence v. Schulteis et al
ORDER DENYING 60 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/18/2013. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
L.L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
On October 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc.
60.) Plaintiff’s six-page motion is a word-for-word copy of the six-page motion for appointment
of counsel filed by Plaintiff eight days earlier on October 7, 2013. (Doc. 58.) The only material
difference is that Plaintiff attached ten pages of exhibits to the October 15th motion, copies of
letters to Plaintiff from attorneys declining to represent Plaintiff. (Doc. 60 at 7-16.) The court
denied Plaintiff’s October 7th motion on October 10, 2013. (Doc. 59.) Based on these facts, the
court construes Plaintiff’s October 15th motion as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s
order denying the October 7th motion.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d
1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.
1992). 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 Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of
Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other
grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule
230(j) requires a party to show the Anew 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.@ L.R. 230(j).
Plaintiff makes no new arguments in support of his motion. Plaintiff’s evidence that
several attorneys declined his requests for representation is unpersuasive. Plaintiff has not set
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.
Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration, filed on October 15, 2013, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 18, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?