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)

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