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)
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?