Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 111

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 108 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/24/13. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS BRANCH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 108.) vs. N. GRANNIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Louis Branch ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 20 commencing this action on July 7, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third 21 Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, against defendants Umphenour, 22 Szalai, and Alvarez for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s safety in violation 23 of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation in violation of the 24 First Amendment. (Doc. 94.) On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 108.) 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2 A. 3 The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 4 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th 5 Cir. 1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. 6 Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 7 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires 8 a party to show the Anew or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist 9 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.@ L. R. 10 Legal Standard 230(j). 11 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 12 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 13 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 14 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations 15 marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 16 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already 17 considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 18 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a 19 strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare 20 Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and 21 reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s Motion 22 B. 23 Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the court’s order of September 16, 2013, which 24 screened the Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 103.) The basis for Plaintiff=s motion for 25 reconsideration is his disagreement with the court=s screening decision and the court=s 26 application of the law to his complaint. Plaintiff has not shown clear error or other meritorious 27 grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. 28 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Plaintiff=s disagreement is not sufficient grounds 2 1 for relief from the order. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. To the extent that 2 Plaintiff seeks consideration of new or re-stated allegations or claims, such relief is not 3 available in this motion for reconsideration, because the court’s screening order is based only 4 on consideration of the allegations and claims as stated in the Third Amended Complaint. 5 Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court 6 to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied. 7 III. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 8 9 CONCLUSION reconsideration, filed on October 18, 2013, is DENIED. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 14 15 16 October 24, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?