Powell v. Madden, et al.

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING 31 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 1/22/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TONY EDWARD POWELL,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00057-RRB
Plaintiff,
vs.
MADDEN, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING
MOTION AT DOCKET 31

Defendants.

At Docket 31 Plaintiff Tony Edward Powell, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed
a document entitled “Petition for Reconsideration.” It appears that Powell seeks
reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying his “Petition for Leave, Permitting Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendant’s Answer to Complaint.”1 It is unclear from Powell’s document on
what procedural basis that relief is sought or, for that matter, precisely what relief he
requests.2 As long as a district court retains jurisdiction over a case, however, it has
inherent power to reconsider and modify an interlocutory order for sufficient cause.3 That
inherent power is not unfettered: a court may depart from the law of the case doctrine
where: “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest

1

Docket 30.

2

Although, as Powell notes, this Court incorrectly referred to him as a “state”
instead of a “federal” prisoner, that error made no difference in the resolution of Powell’s
motion.
3

City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.

2001).
ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 31]
Powell v. Madden, 1:13-cv-00057-RRB – 1

injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3)
substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial.”4 Because, as presently
constituted, as was the defect in his earlier motion, Powell’s motion does not satisfy the
requirements for summary disposition,5 Powell does not meet the criteria for
reconsideration.
This Court reiterates that it will consider the matters that may be properly submitted
to it for determination pre-trial when presented as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.6 Accordingly, the document entitled “Petition for Reconsideration” at Docket 31
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2014.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (footnote and
internal quotes omitted); see Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir.
1995); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
Cir. 1993).
5

See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (judgment on the pleadings), 56 (summary

judgment).
6

Id.

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 31]
Powell v. Madden, 1:13-cv-00057-RRB – 2