Scott v. McDonald
Filing
142
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/12/14 ORDERING that plaintiffs objections, construed as a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 141 ) is denied. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HOWARD SCOTT,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:09-cv-0851-MCE-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
M. McDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. On March 21, 2014, the court denied plaintiff’s request for appointment of
19
counsel. ECF No. 137. The court also construed plaintiff’s motion, entitled “Motion for
20
Summary Judgment and Motion for Request for Appointment of Counsel as well as Opposing
21
Attorney General Motion to Dismiss,” as a motion to compel, and denied that motion as well.
22
See id. (explaining that given the July 29, 2013 deadline for filing motions to compel, plaintiff’s
23
February 7, 2014 motion was not timely filed). Plaintiff has filed “objections” to the March 21,
24
2014 order, which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 132 at 2, 3
25
(objecting to portion of order denying counsel and requesting that the court “revisit” its ruling on
26
the “summary judgment” motion).
27
28
Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different
facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior
1
1
motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
2
E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).
3
4
5
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because it does not describe new or different facts that
plaintiff could not have shown with his prior motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “objections,” construed as a
6
motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 141) is denied.
7
DATED: May 12, 2014.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?