White et al v. Valarie

Filing 65

ORDER Denying Motion To Vacate Judgment (Doc. 64 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/21/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HORTENSE WHITE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:13-cv-00157-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGMENT
(Doc. 64.)

vs.
TRENONE VALARIE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Hortense White (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action on

20

November 26, 2012, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

21

as case 12-6599.

22

Pennsylvania consolidated case 12-6599 [White v. Valarie] with case 12-6885 [White v.

23

Central California Women’s Facility], and transferred the consolidated action to the United

24

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 8.)

(Doc. 1.)

On January 31, 2013, the court for the Eastern District of

25

This case was dismissed on August 30, 2013, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim

26

upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, and judgment was entered on August 30, 2013.

27

(Docs. 53, 54.) On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Thou; motion to

28

vacate,” which the court construes as a motion to vacate the judgment. (Doc. 64.)
1

1

II.

2

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42

3

F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th

4

Cir. 1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v.

5

Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460

6

(9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly

7

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist.

8

v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in

9

part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration,

10

Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the Anew or different facts or circumstances claimed

11

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

12

exist for the motion.@ L.R. 230(j).

13

Plaintiff’s motion consists of a rambling narrative in which she makes legal discussion

14

with no connection to the order and judgment entered on August 30, 2013 in this case. Plaintiff

15

has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its

16

prior decision, or shown any other grounds for the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must

17

be denied.

18

III.

19
20

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to vacate

the judgment, filed on November 18, 2013, is DENIED.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2