Broussard v. Munoz, et al

Filing 20

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration (ECF No. 19 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/10/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR.,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–001276-BAM PC

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
LISA A. MUNOZ, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 19)

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Curley John Broussard, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 27, 2012, an order

17

issued denying Plaintiff’s motion for a court order and granting him an extension of time to file an

18

amended complaint.

19

reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a court order. (ECF No. 19.)

(ECF No. 18.)

On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for

20

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

21

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

22

there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or

23

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

24

litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.

25

2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

26

In this instance, Plaintiff’s complaint had been dismissed with leave to amend and the Court

27

did not have before it an actual case or controversy conferring jurisdiction to order the relief Plaintiff

28

requested. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley
1

Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471,
102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). Plaintiff does set forth any grounds for reconsideration of the order
1

denying his motion for a court order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed

2

September 6, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

September 10, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2