Warnken v. Schwarzenegger, et al.,

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/6/2010 DENYING 57 Motion for Reconsideration. (Engbretson, K.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NO. CIV. S-08-2891 LKK/EFB 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. ORDER ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California; DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State; JERRY BROWN, Attorney General; THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY, and ONE TO UNKNOWN DOE ASSISTANTS, Defendants. / On December 8, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that this court dismiss plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend. On December 23, 2009, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On January 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for oral argument before this court concerning the motions to dismiss, which the Magistrate Judge recommended this court dismiss. On February 24, 2010, this court 1 Plaintiffs, MICHAEL C. WARNKEN and ALL CALIFORNIANS SIMILARLY SITUATED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

denied plaintiff's motion for oral argument. On March 9, 2010, this court adopted the findings and recommendations in full, dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. On April 2, 2010, plaintiff filed an application for

reconsideration. It appears that he is seeking that the court reconsider both its February 24, 2010 and March 9, 2010 orders. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(j), a party seeking reconsideration of a court order granting or denying a motion in whole or in part must "present to the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom such subsequent motion is made an

affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which

reconsideration is sought, including: (1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior motion was made; (2) (3) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon; what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion; and (4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." Here, plaintiff has not provided any grounds as to why this court should reconsider its prior orders. Rather, plaintiff merely attempts to explain his late filing of the application for

reconsideration. Because plaintiff has not presented any new facts 2

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

or circumstances or any other ground upon which the court should reconsider its prior orders, the court need not consider whether plaintiff's late filing should be excused. Thus, the court denies plaintiff's motion because he has presented no argument whatsoever as to why this court should reconsider its prior orders. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's application for

reconsideration, Doc. 57, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 6, 2010.

3