Woods v. Carey, et al

Filing 252

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/4/09 ORDERING that plt's 251 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Duong, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. TOM L. CAREY, et al., Defendants. / The court is in receipt of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's July 7, 2009 order, in which the court denied plaintiff's request for a transcript at the government's expense. For the reasons stated herein, the court denies plaintiff's motion. "Under the `law of the case' doctrine a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case." United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997)(citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993)). Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, see Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 824 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988), considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the "new or different facts or circumstances . ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

. . which . . . were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Generally speaking, before reconsideration may be granted there must be a change in the controlling law or facts, the need to correct a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876. In the case at bar, plaintiff fails to explain how there was a change in the controlling law or facts, or a need to correct a clear error. Upon review of the court's July 7, 2009, that order appears supported by law and the facts before the court. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 251) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 4, 2009.

2