Chacon v. Cerrini, et al.
Filing
26
ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 25 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/13/13. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:11-cv-01689-GSA-PC
EDIN A. CHACON,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 25.)
vs.
J. CERRINI, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Edin A. Chacon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
20
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
21
January 10, 2011. (Doc. 1.)
Now pending is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Screening Order
22
23
which dismissed certain claims from Plaintiff’s amended complaint, with leave to amend.
24
(Doc. 25.)
25
II.
26
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42
27
F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th
28
Cir. 1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v.
1
1
Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460
2
(9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly
3
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist.
4
v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in
5
part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration,
6
Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the Anew or different facts or circumstances claimed
7
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds
8
exist for the motion.@ L.R. 230(j).
9
Plaintiff argues that his due process claim, and claim concerning the inmate appeals
10
process, should have been found cognizable by the Court in the Screening Order issued on
11
March 19, 2013. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
12
induce the court to reverse its prior decision. The Screening Order requires Plaintiff to either
13
file a Second Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, to notify the Court that he is willing to
14
proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court. If Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s
15
findings in the Screening Order, Plaintiff’s remedy at this stage of the proceedings is to file a
16
Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied.
17
III.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
18
19
CONCLUSION
reconsideration, filed on April 8, 2013, is DENIED.
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
24
25
26
April 13, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
27
28
2
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?