White et al v. Valarie

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 66 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/13/13. (Hellings, J)

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 FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 66.)

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. This case was dismissed on August

20

30, 2013, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under §

21

1983, and judgment was entered on August 30, 2013. (Docs. 53, 54.)

22

On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document (Doc. 66.) which the court construes

23

as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order of November 22, 2013, which denied

24

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment.

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

10

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

11

motion must be denied.

12

III.

13
14

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

reconsideration, filed on December 4, 2013, is DENIED.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 13, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

motion

for