Broussard v. Munoz, et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration And Denying Plaintiff's Request For An Extension Of Time (ECF No. 21 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/27/2012. (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–01276-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

O R D E R D ENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME

v.
LISA A. MUNOZ, et al.,

(ECF No. 21)
13

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 10, 2012, Plaintiff’s

17

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff filed a

18

motion for a court order and requested a thirty day extension of time on August 22, 2012. (ECF No.

19

16.) On August 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff’s

20

motion for reconsideration was denied and his request for an extension of time to file an amended

21

complaint was granted on August 27, 2012.

22

reconsideration of the order denying his request for a court order on September 6, 2012. (ECF No.

23

19.) On September 10, 2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF

24

No. 20.) On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration of the order

25

denying his request for a court order and requested a thirty day extension of time. (ECF No. 21.)

(ECF No. 18.)

Plaintiff filed a motion for

26

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

27

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

28

there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or
1

1

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

2

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

3

2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Local Rule 230(j)

4

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are

5

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

6

grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of

7

the prior motion.”

8

The Court has already denied one motion for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff’s

9

motion for a court order. Plaintiff has not set forth any grounds entitling him to reconsideration of

10

the order. Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed and there is no case or controversy before the

11

Court upon which the requested relief can be granted.

12

Plaintiff also requests a thirty day extension of the court deadline in this action. However,

13

there are currently no established deadlines in this action. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on

14

August 23, 2012, is currently pending screening. Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty day extension of time

15

is denied.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed September 26, 2012, is denied;

18

2.

Any further motions for reconsideration of the denial of Plaintiff’s request for a court

19

order shall be stricken from the record; and

20
21
22

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty day extension of time is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

September 27, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2