Charles Windham v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 42

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 41 Objections to Order Regarding Declarations/Recusal, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/14/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 CHARLES WINDHAM, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. C. RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00979-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER REGARDING DECLARATIONS/RECUSAL (ECF No. 41) 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 11, 2017, this Court overruled Plaintiff’s objections to a July 24, 2017 order 21 striking inmate Anthony Ivan Bobadilla’s declaration for noncompliance with Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 11(a) and Local Rule 131(b), (ECF No. 35), and a July 27, 2017 order disregarding 23 Plaintiff’s declaration because it did not appear to relate to any pending motion in this case, (ECF No. 24 37). The Court found no grounds for reconsideration of those orders. (ECF No. 39, at pp. 2-4.) The 25 Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for recusal or motion to disqualify the undersigned, (id.), and 26 denied Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel, (id. at 4-5). 27 Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s August 11, 2017 order. 28 (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff asserts that inmate Bobadilla’s declaration is relevant to issues of 1 1 obstruction/destruction of evidence and legal research books/materials, and also asserts that he 2 previously filed documents requesting an evidentiary hearing and appointment of legal counsel, at the 3 same time he filed the same motion in a separate case, Windham v. Marin, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv- 4 1636-DAD-BAM-PC. Plaintiff asserts that he submitted proper filings, signed by him, explaining 5 what the evidence was and what its purpose was. Plaintiff also states that he should be appointed 6 counsel, with costs paid by Defendants as a sanction against them, because prison guards and officials 7 have stolen his work product and legal research materials. 8 To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior rulings, he has not met his 9 burden. Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 10 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 11 Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 12 to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 13 Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th 14 Cir. 1987). 15 Here, although Plaintiff asserts that he has submitted motions and other filings for the Court to 16 rule upon, no such motions or filings have been received in this case. Plaintiff is not precluded from 17 filing an appropriate motion and submitting declarations or other evidence in support of any request 18 for relief, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. There is no 19 pending request for an evidentiary hearing or sanctions in this case. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s August 11, 20 21 2017 order are overruled. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 25 September 14, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 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?