Anaya v. Herrington et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING Objections 28 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/16/10. (Hellings, J)

(PC) Anaya v. Herrington et al

Doc. 29

1 2 3 4 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA, 8 9 v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01653-DLB PC ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 28)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 HERRINGTON, et al., 11 12 13 Plaintiff Richard Ernest Anaya ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Defendants. /

14 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 15 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the 16 Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). On November 30, 2010, the Court screened 17 Plaintiff's second amended complaint, and dismissed certain claims. Doc. 26. This action is 18 proceeding against Defendants S. Lopez and Chen for deliberate indifference to a serious medical 19 need in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants S. Lopez, Chen, Herrington, 20 Keldgore, and White in their official capacity for violation of Title II of the ADA. 21 Plaintiff filed objections to the Court's screening order on December 13, 2010. Doc. 28.

22 Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in dismissing any of Plaintiff's claims, and that it was 23 unclear what claims the Court had dismissed. The Court construes Plaintiff's objections as a 24 motion for reconsideration. 25 The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42

26 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 27 1992); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are 28 not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-6 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is 2 reconsideration to be used to ask the court to rethink what it has already thought. United States 3 v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz.1998). "A party seeking reconsideration must 4 show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and 5 arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving 6 party's burden." United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 7 2001). 8 Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

9 Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th 10 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing 11 nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 12 Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other 13 grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 14 230(j) requires a party to show the "new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist 15 which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 16 the motion." 17 The Court denies Plaintiff's objections. As stated clearly in the November 30, 2010

18 Order, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against 19 Defendants Keldgore, White, and Herrington. However, the Court found a cognizable Eighth 20 Amendment claim against Defendants Chen and Lopez. The Court also found a cognizable ADA 21 claim against all five Defendants in their official capacity. Plaintiff cites no case law that 22 supports his contention that the Court erred. 23 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections, filed

24 December 13, 2010, are DENIED. 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a

December 16, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE