Chatman v. Felker, et. al.

Filing 79

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/10/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES CHATMAN,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:06-cv-2912 LKK EFB P

TOM FELKER, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

On April 29, 2009, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28

17

U.S.C. § 1915A. Dckt. No. 16. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s July 16, 2012 motion for

18

reconsideration of that order. Dckt. No. 74. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion. Dckt. No.

19

75.

20

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered

21

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

22

an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

23

(9th Cir. 1993). Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or

24

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

25

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or

26

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)1

1

(4). See also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(b) (“Rulings by Magistrate Judges pursuant to this Rule

2

shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen (14) days

3

calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the parties, unless a different time is

4

prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or the Judge.”). Plaintiff’s untimely motion does not

5

describe new or different facts or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the

6

court’s April 29, 2009 order.

7
8

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dckt. No. 74) is denied.
DATED: August 10, 2012.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2