Le v. Sandor et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/15/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNY LE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
G. SANDOR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01464-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(ECF No. 10)

17
18

I.

19

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

Background

20

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on September 19,

21

2014. (ECF No. 1.) On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order

22

and preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 6.) The Court denied the motion without prejudice on October

23

1, 2014. (ECF No. 8.) On October 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion objecting to the denial

24

of his motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 10.) The Court construes the objections as

25

a motion for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order

26

and preliminary injunction.

27

///

28

///
1

1

II.

Discussion

2

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

3

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

4

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH

5

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). “A party

6

seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and

7

recapitulation ...” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United

8

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001). To succeed, a party must

9

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.

10

See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986), affirmed in

11

part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987). Additionally, pursuant to this

12

Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or

13

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

14

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).
By the instant request for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to consider

15
16

his memorandum of law in support of the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

17

injunction. Plaintiff is correct. The Court did not consider his memorandum of law, which was filed

18

with his complaint and entered into the docket as a single document. (ECF No. 1.) Nonetheless, even

19

if the Court had considered the supporting memorandum, it could not issue the requested relief. As

20

previously stated, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it states a

21

cognizable claim, no defendant has been ordered served and no defendant has yet made an appearance.

22

Thus, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it cannot issue an order requiring

23

them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct.

24

1562 (1969); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007).
The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. Plaintiff is not precluded from

25
26

refiling his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction if his claims are found

27

cognizable and the Court orders service of the complaint.

28

///
2

1

III.

Conclusion and Order

2

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his

3

motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, filed on October 10, 2014, is

4

DENIED.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 15, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3